There is no God

reply to post by twsnhr013


Well, the Creator has never spoken to me personally demanding that I worship Him/Her, so maybe the whole idea of worshipping the Creator and assuming Him/Her to be omniscient/omnipotent is a construct of man. However you still have presented no reasonable proof of anything other than your personal opinion.

littled16
reply to post by twsnhr013

 

Well, the Creator has never spoken to me personally demanding that I worship Him/Her, so maybe the whole idea of worshipping the Creator and assuming Him/Her to be omniscient/omnipotent is a construct of man. However you still have presented no reasonable proof of anything other than your personal opinion.

And where is yours, if I may inquire?

I personally view creation as some crazy accident and the creator as some mad scientist who fumbled with some chemicals while getting a cup of coffee. He wouldn't require worship or faith and might not even be around anymore let alone in a position of authority.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm just glad it's all settled then.

Because as we all know, science has never been wrong. Ever!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If you look back at all I have posted in this thread you will see that I have never boasted proof of anything- only the OP has displayed that sort of tomfoolery. You know as well as I that there is no solid proof for either side in this instance- no need to be coy with me, we've done this before! But if someone (OP) wants to claim proof I want to see it- I'm open minded- but so far all I have seen is opinion.

poloblack
The free will argument doesn't cut it. If the Creator knows ALL, even before you were born, the free will argument is moot.

How so?

beezzer
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I'm just glad it's all settled then.

Because as we all know, science has never been wrong. Ever!

Sarcasm noted. But allow me to remind you who has the biggest track record for admitting they were wrong. That's a lot of first steps, hmm? And look where they got us. I mean, it's not like Edison kept insisting his first schematic for the lightbulb was correct and it was the universe that was out of whack. Or Benjamin Franklin who insisted that lightning was a sign that maybe he should put his key back on the hook and pull out his Bible. Or perhaps Graham Bell heard the voice coming out of his phonograph and had it burned for belief that it was possessed by demons.

Long story short, science has a long history of not jumping to conclusions, of allowing their curiosity to visit some scary places with surprising results, of admitting their errors and being richly rewarded for it, and above all, for giving us miracles we might not otherwise have had for fear of pissing God off.

Science has been wrong before. But the important thing is, we recognized it.

littled16
reply to post by twsnhr013

 

Well, the Creator has never spoken to me personally demanding that I worship Him/Her, so maybe the whole idea of worshipping the Creator and assuming Him/Her to be omniscient/omnipotent is a construct of man. However you still have presented no reasonable proof of anything other than your personal opinion.

I don't know about physical evidence, but I supported my statement well with a logical proof. I even used your own words to support the statement that there is no omniscient and omnipotent being. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to. I'm just happy to have this conversation.

reply to post by twsnhr013
Psalms 14:1

The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is no one that does good.

Religion makes one foolish.

The Muslims have a creed or confession of faith that reads
"There is no God but Allah"

Let’s break that down

That word Allah isn’t really a name it is an attribute that includes ALL Gods attributes OR NAMES OR INTELLGENCES AND POWERS.

So the term “There is no God” part of the confession of faith
Means there is no such thing as a God. Single entity

And the second aspect “But Allah”
Means EVERYTHING, all powers, concepts, and attributes something almost indefinable.

So this really means:

There is no such thing as a God. There is only All attributes and powers of reality

reply to post by twsnhr013


That's where the confusion comes into play- logic doesn't automatically imply truth or fact therefore isn't admissible as fact unless backed up by solid evidence. Neither dog in this fight has more or less evidence than the other and that is why it comes down to being a matter of opinion and belief instead of fact and proof. And it's good to have this sort of discussion provided everyone can keep a clear head and be respectful- unfortunately most threads of this type don't continue in that manner for very long.

poloblack
Not BS, that's your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. If the Creator has foreknowledge of all events that are going to transpire, your free will means nothing. It's already said and done. I believe there's a higher power, a ''Creator'', so to speak, but I'm not buying the original story.

Where and when did I state that I believe or follow the 'Original' story?

Projecting what you believe others believe onto them and then create an argument based on that belief of what you think they believe instead of actually finding out what those others actually think/believe?


I ask because you deny what you percieve I beleive then state something very similar to what I actually do.

AfterInfinity


Science has been wrong before. But the important thing is, we recognized it.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Doesn't this then, invalidate your entire argument?

reply to post by Rosinitiate

Bingo, we have a winner. Now whats the prize?

twsnhr013
There is no omniscient omnipotent being.

This is existence - it is 'being' all there is.

There is no one separate to the omniscient omnipotent being.

This and you are inseparable - existence is one and it is doing it all.

Being is all there is.

beezzer

AfterInfinity


Science has been wrong before. But the important thing is, we recognized it.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Doesn't this then, invalidate your entire argument?

Not really, given that you first have to recognize an error to correct it. You seem to think that being wrong is the end of it. No, you are wrong. Then you learn what the truth is. Then you are right because you know the truth.

SLAYER69

poloblack
Not BS, that's your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. If the Creator has foreknowledge of all events that are going to transpire, your free will means nothing. It's already said and done. I believe there's a higher power, a ''Creator'', so to speak, but I'm not buying the original story.

Where and when did I state that I believe or follow the 'Original' story?

Projecting what you believe others believe onto them and then create an argument based on that belief of what you think they believe instead of actually finding out what those others actually think/believe?


I ask because you deny what you percieve I beleive then state something very similar to what I actually do.

I NEVER said anything implying that I pretend to know what you believe.I didn't know or care if you believed the original story or not. My response was to your calling my opinion about freewill bull$#!+. And I stand by what I said. If the ''Creator is ALL SEEING, and ALL KNOWING, your life was predestined, by the ''CREATOR''. Where is the ''freewill'' in that equation?

AfterInfinity

beezzer

AfterInfinity


Science has been wrong before. But the important thing is, we recognized it.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Doesn't this then, invalidate your entire argument?

Not really, given that you first have to recognize an error to correct it. You seem to think that being wrong is the end of it. No, you are wrong. Then you learn what the truth is. Then you are right because you know the truth.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You stated that science shows that God does not exist.

Then you stated that science is often wrong.

So the vehicle that disproves the existence of God is wrong.

QED

(time for lunch now!)

beezzer

AfterInfinity

beezzer

AfterInfinity


Science has been wrong before. But the important thing is, we recognized it.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Doesn't this then, invalidate your entire argument?

Not really, given that you first have to recognize an error to correct it. You seem to think that being wrong is the end of it. No, you are wrong. Then you learn what the truth is. Then you are right because you know the truth.

edit on 22-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You stated that science shows that God does not exist.

Then you stated that science is often wrong.

So the vehicle that disproves the existence of God is wrong.

QED

(time for lunch now!)

No, science is not wrong because science has no opinion. I misspoke. It is the people who use science that are many times wrong, but they strive to be right according to the methods of science. If everything is done correctly (and there are ways to test that) then the results should be objectively factual. So on that note: why not test it using the scientific method? Surely we can come up with a whole bunch of reasonable hypothesi (plural for hypothesis) to test the existence of a divine entity. First things first: make a list of common assumptions regarding deities and test those assumptions using the scientific method. When was the last time you did this? Because according to my tests, a perfectly ordinary milk jug grants just as many prayers as any god does. And I tested quite a few over a period of three months. I mean, that was years ago, but it counts, right?

So how about it? Any ideas, anyone? You guys wanna give this a try?

Dunno, imo, when you remove the omnibenevolent factor... an omnipresent and/or omniscient structure becomes a lot more likely.

Without assuming this is true, the entire foundation of science is thrown off. We need to assume things happen according to a pattern that is present everywhere, and we need to assume that everything behaves as if it "knows" the pattern. Consciously or not, this knowledge of a universal pattern is present in how objects are able to make movement in any way.

Now, when it comes down to calling it something specific, well.... that seems to introduce a massive amount of ammo for a fight.