It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 26
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 


Do you exchange gifts on CHRISTMAS because if you do, you believe in Santa. Since for religious reasons giving gifts on Christmas is a Hallmark holiday made up to make us spend money, so in essence giving out gifts on Jesus's birthday is Anti-Christian/Catholic/Protestant. Since it takes away meaning from the day.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by TNT13]




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus 340 - 270 BCE


Epicurus had some interesting things to say.


Epicurus also believed (contra Aristotle) that death was not to be feared. When a man dies, he does not feel the pain of death because he no longer is and he therefore feels nothing. Therefore, as Epicurus famously said, "death is nothing to us." When we exist death is not, and when death exists we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the false belief that in death there is awareness.

In connection with this argument, Epicurus formulated a version of the problem of evil. Though often referred to as the "Epicurean paradox," the argument is more accurately described as a reductio ad absurdum of the notion that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god could exist in a world that manifestly contains evil.[7] This doctrine, however, is not aimed at promoting atheism. Instead, it is part of an overarching philosophy meant to convince us that what gods there may be do not concern themselves with us, and thus would not seek to punish us either in this or any other life.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 22/2/2009 by Good Wolf]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
The fact there are Atheist only substantiates proof of God.

There are many things which do not exist, which no one sets out to prove or disprove and, no titles have been given to the people who would set out to prove or disprove, for the very fact that what doesn’t exist can neither be defended or disproved, nor can believers or unbelievers be defined for that which is non existent.

There again, there is a God and there are those who set out to prove His existence and those who set out to disprove His existence. The fact the debate wages is enough proof to His existence. What doesn’t exist is neither proved nor disprovable, because, it is nonexistent.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jdposey
 


What doesn’t exist is neither proved nor disprovable, because, it is nonexistent.


And so as the debate goes on, God is not proven or disproven.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Total agreement here on that score Good Wolf!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
The fact there are Atheist only substantiates proof of God.

There are many things which do not exist, which no one sets out to prove or disprove and, no titles have been given to the people who would set out to prove or disprove, for the very fact that what doesn’t exist can neither be defended or disproved, nor can believers or unbelievers be defined for that which is non existent.

There again, there is a God and there are those who set out to prove His existence and those who set out to disprove His existence. The fact the debate wages is enough proof to His existence. What doesn’t exist is neither proved nor disprovable, because, it is nonexistent.


just imagine a 2000+ years of selective breading through religion... the results would be severely detremental to intelligence. Doesnt anyone agree? We probobly put ourselfs back 1000's of years in developement.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 


Total agreement here on that score Good Wolf!


Which is why the debate goes on and neither side proves their case.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


No, the fact that God is debated only stands to verify His existence.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jdposey
 


No, the fact that God is debated only stands to verify His existence.


Say it louder, it might come true if you believe it hard enough.

If he had been proven, there would be no debating, yet there is debating, meaning God is unproven.

I wonder why.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
No, the fact that God is debated only stands to verify His existence.


How do you know that god (if god exists) is a he?

God could be an 'it',a 'she' or a 'they' for all you know.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
just imagine a 2000+ years of selective breading through religion... the results would be severely detremental to intelligence. Doesnt anyone agree? We probobly put ourselfs back 1000's of years in developement.


Firstly I am not a grammer nazi but this is driving me insane. It's breeding not breading, it's ourselves not ourselfs. Learn to type before you go around calling people stupid as you do. Please.

Ok, now to your topic at hand.
If you place the bar at what you consider developement possibly. But to quote Oscar Wilde:

“Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.”



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I can think of a great deal of things unproven yet still considered true within the annals of science friend. Cosmology is a big example of that.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


ACtually... ethiopia has one of the strongest christian followings in the world...

They actually believe they have the arc of the covenant, and there are many many places of worship that date back to the crusades.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gregor100
 


You Cant Be Serious ? Thats It ? "If" He Does Exist, im Sure He Knows All, Therefor Knows What's In Store For Us ..And Im also Sure ..That if he Wants To ..He Can Change What he Originaly Scripted For Us. ."Our" Futur.Not That He Would ..Might Mean The Perfect One Made a mistake. And If He Does Change It. ..How Would We Know ? Lol, ..The Ignorance. All Those Stars Up there, Does That Mean Ppl Concur With Your Observation ? I Hope Not.

Love Be With You - HimCelph Tu'Ponder



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
just imagine a 2000+ years of selective breading through religion... the results would be severely detremental to intelligence. Doesnt anyone agree? We probobly put ourselfs back 1000's of years in developement.


Carl Sagan once said :

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
If he had been proven, there would be no debating, yet there is debating, meaning God is unproven.

I wonder why.


Actually, God has proven himself many times to many people. YOU are just late... very late..

To prove God exists, is very simple. I can prove it with basic logic mixed with occam's razor:

If you exist, then you were created, whatever created you is your Father, your God.


Once again I prove God exists by simply proving that you exist.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdposey
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


No, the fact that God is debated only stands to verify His existence.



What kind of logic is that?

How's this one: The fact that you doubt my superpowers only stands to prove I have them.

does that make sense at all?

Not to mention you're misusing occam's razor...

Is it simpler to build a house one brick at a time? or is it simpler to build the entire house at once...

we're suggesting one brick at a time...

you're suggesting building it in one fell swoop.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


I can think of a great deal of things unproven yet still considered true within the annals of science friend. Cosmology is a big example of that.


I hope you're not confusing cosmology with theoretical physics...

But even so... the difference is... as new information is discovered, the ideas change and adapt...

religion is not like that... it would be considered "heresy" if you went through and edited the material contained in the bible to fit new discovery.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Once again I prove God exists by simply proving that you exist.


Why is it impossible for man to exist without god?

or are you just ignoring all other possibilities, and determining your point of view to be fact?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Once again I prove God exists by simply proving that you exist.


Why is it impossible for man to exist without god?

or are you just ignoring all other possibilities, and determining your point of view to be fact?


YOU are totally ignoring the logic... wow! I can't make it more simple.....

It is impossible for man to exist without being created.

Whatever created you... is technically called your "God" by standard definition.

You can't wiggle your way out of this one, even if you claim you don't exist. Anything from here will be straw man tactics.




top topics



 
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join