Let's think this through ... God

[Ecmandu]

Phyllo… You’re banging your head against a brick wall to signify that I’m dense …

All you’re doing is denying everything put forth about god… And then saying I didn’t disprove god, well guess what, by denying everything, you disproved God, to win the debate, you lost the debate.

My stipulations are simple

Creator and/or omni and/or justice

If god is creator, then god created people not wanting to be where they are (suffering)

If god is omni, then god likes to suffer

If god is justice, god needs to be omni, because you can’t have justice without knowledge

Justice is the basest element of any god…

You alluded to the 5000+ different Gods…

All 5000+ of them are justice gods

Which means they all have to be omni to perform their tasks properly…

Then you start to dilute the term “god”
By stating things like…, perfect justice is only the Hebrew god… And the Hebrew god is only one of 5000+ gods.

I differ … If all 5000+ gods are worshipped because of justice and the cause and effect (kill a rabbit and get rain) then they all have to be omni in order to accomplish this task.

Omni implies perfection.

So all the Gods, not just Hebrew ones, are omni.

Otherwise, we can prove that they can’t compitently mete out justice, which is the reason we call them Gods.

You dilute it to the extent that god has no more power than a rabbit, and then tell me “and thus you did not disprove God”

You’re defining God as anything, and then banging your head against a wall, to presumably telepath to the boards that your argument is smart and I’m too stupid to understand this.

What’s interesting about how easy it is to argue your point, and how disingenuous you truly are:

YOU never gave a definition of God

You claim to have been the grandmaster apprentice of someone regarding proof …

You can’t disprove a disproof without defining the term yourself !!! You just made yourself look pretty dumb by bragging about this

[phyllo]

YOU never gave a definition of God

I don’t need to define “God” because I’m not arguing about God … I’m arguing that you did not fulfill the requirements of a valid proof.

One requirement is that there is only one assumption.

Another requirement is that all other statements must be unquestionably true.

I only bring up alternate concepts of God in order to show you that your proof contains assumptions and statements which are disputable or outright false.

If you had rigorously defined your words and used only true statements, then I would say that your proof is logically correct. ← That’s the integrity part of reasoning.

[Ecmandu]

@phyllo

YOU never gave a definition of God

I don’t need to define “God” because I’m not arguing about God … I’m arguing that you did not fulfill the requirements of a valid proof.

One requirement is that there is only one assumption.

Another requirement is that all other statements must be unquestionably true.

I only bring up alternate concepts of God in order to show you that your proof contains assumptions and statements which are disputable or outright false.

If you had rigorously defined your words and used only true statements, then I would say that your proof is logically correct.

Actually, mr self proclaimed grandmaster proof, if you disagree with another’s definition, you HAVE to provide your own and prove why yours is correct over the others to form a disproof of a disproof.

[phyllo]

Those church burnings seem to be a useless and gratuitous destruction of property.

In your original proof, you did not state your basic assumption … we had to figure it out from your conclusion (“god doesn’t exist”).

You did not define what you meant by “god”, therefore it is reasonable to believe that your proof is applicable to any concept of god including Shiva, Odin, Mercury, Athena, etc.

Now it turns out that you have a very specific definition of “god” in mind.

Okay, go ahead and show a proof that your specific god does not exist. Or show a proof that a general god does not exist.

I’m open to all this. Let’s see what you have got.

[Ecmandu]

God, in order to be a concept different from “skunk” “cardboard” or “carrot” or “human” is defined by the quality of creating all these things, and justice, which requires knowing all these things.

It’s the quality of creation and perfect (omni) justice which defines any god.

It may not be perfect justice to kill a rabbit for a rainstorm, BUT!! It requires omniscience, to know the rabbit was sacrificed for the storm.

Therefor, omniscience doesn’t require perfect justice …

But that’s a contradiction

An omniscient being (must be omni feeling ) would never make a mistake that made itself suffer, by the definition of suffering (being in a state where you don’t want to be)

Therefor, God is defined as an omni being.

Being omni, it experiences all entirely, and any being on earth who declares that they are not where they want to be is disproof of God.

[phyllo]

There are possibly 330 million deities in Hinduism. Just saying.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Ecmandu

So God loves suffering ???

Only if you yourself do.

Everything which we can personally say about God is a projection of our inner self.

It is all simply a projection. Whether or not there is Something out there which actually caused existence and continues to, even randomly, we cannot really know about this Something…except through our own living experience and that’s not true knowing. It’s just subjective…which is all well and good if it’s positive.

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

Actually, mr self proclaimed grandmaster proof, if you disagree with another’s definition, you HAVE to provide your own and prove why yours is correct over the others to form a disproof of a disproof.

Actually, phyllo is exactly right.

[Ecmandu]

@James S Saint

@Ecmandu

Actually, mr self proclaimed grandmaster proof, if you disagree with another’s definition, you HAVE to provide your own and prove why yours is correct over the others to form a disproof of a disproof.

Actually, phyllo is exactly right.

I know you and Phyllo believe in God…

Phyllo is not right…

If Phyllo says “your definition (which is the base of the argument) is disagreeable to me”

Phyllo can’t keep dodging the bullet by refusing to define anything…

You and phyllo are both wrong

[phyllo]

@Arcturus Descending

@Ecmandu

So God loves suffering ???

Only if you yourself do.

Everything which we can personally say about God is a projection of our inner self.

It is all simply a projection. Whether or not there is Something out there which actually caused existence and continues to, even randomly, we cannot really know about this Something…except through our own living experience and that’s not true knowing. It’s just subjective…which is all well and good if it’s positive.

Then saying that “things fall down” is also a “projection of our inner self”?

If yes, then that seems strange.

If no, then what’s the difference?

What’s “true knowing” compared to “knowing”?

[Ecmandu]

@Arcturus Descending

@Ecmandu

So God loves suffering ???

Only if you yourself do.

Everything which we can personally say about God is a projection of our inner self.

It is all simply a projection. Whether or not there is Something out there which actually caused existence and continues to, even randomly, we cannot really know about this Something…except through our own living experience and that’s not true knowing. It’s just subjective…which is all well and good if it’s positive.

The thread has evolved since then…

I defined suffer as a state of being you don’t want to be in, which makes your point, pointless

[James_S_Saint]

@Ecmandu

@James S Saint

@Ecmandu

Actually, mr self proclaimed grandmaster proof, if you disagree with another’s definition, you HAVE to provide your own and prove why yours is correct over the others to form a disproof of a disproof.

Actually, phyllo is exactly right.

I know you and Phyllo believe in God…

It doesn’t have anything to do with belief in God.

A Proof requires specific definitions, else it doesn’t really prove anything.
There must be a complete lack of alternatives.

[Arcturus_Descending]

ecmandu

An omniscient being (must be omni feeling )

Omnicient as in all knowing? Why would that being have to be one which also feels all things?
It is only our subjective thinking and feeling as humans which give that character to God. Again, projection.

would never make a mistake that made itself suffer, by the definition of suffering (being in a state where you don’t want to be)

You’re speaking of the human being here - not the God we’re trying to discuss.
Humans allow their selves to suffer all the time - we place our selves in situations at times where the only conclusion/result can be suffering.

Being omni, it experiences all entirely, and any being on earth who declares that they are not where they want to be is disproof of God.

In other words, we are all puppets, there is no such thing as a self-determined autonomous being, there is no such thing as free will or let’s say free choice inasmuch as we are able to be somewhat conscious of our choices and why we make them.

I’m agnostic but i do not hold to being so inter-connected with a possible God that my dissatisfaction with life would send this so-called God into oblivion.

[Ecmandu]

In order for a being to know everything it must feel all feelings upon superimposed concepts.

God created “I don’t want to be here in this context”

Why would God do that? Free will is not defined by shit!!

Parallel processing all of us does not make us automatons either

[Arcturus_Descending]

phyllo,

Then saying that “things fall down” is also a “projection of our inner self”?

We’re speaking here about something which cannot be proven…only speculated about. God.
We see things fall down, we understand about gravity.
There is no projection there because it is fact…there is evidence for it.

What’s “true knowing” compared to “knowing”?

That might depend on the individual.
For me, true or "real knowing is that which has been proven. It’s objective, not subjective.

About knowing - that could be anything from really knowing and understanding and so-called knowing which is simply based on one’s own desires and illusions.

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Ecmandu

In order for a being to know everything it must feel all feelings upon superimposed concepts.

God created “I don’t want to be here in this context”

Why would God do that? Free will is not defined by shit!!

Parallel processing all of us does not make us automatons either

What is parallel processing to you?

You are also making an assumption that if there is a god, this god must know everything.
Why is that?
Perhaps it is because, otherwise, we might be uncomfortable with a god who doesn’t know everything

Why does a God have to “feel”? Is it possibly because we are feeling/experiencing beings and we can’t imagine a God who is an impersonal one?

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Ecmandu

@Arcturus Descending

@Ecmandu

So God loves suffering ???

Only if you yourself do.

Everything which we can personally say about God is a projection of our inner self.

It is all simply a projection. Whether or not there is Something out there which actually caused existence and continues to, even randomly, we cannot really know about this Something…except through our own living experience and that’s not true knowing. It’s just subjective…which is all well and good if it’s positive.

The thread has evolved since then…

I defined suffer as a state of being you don’t want to be in, which makes your point, pointless

You might want to define what YOU mean by “evolved”. I don’t see it.

[phyllo]

We’re speaking here about something which cannot be proven…only speculated about. God.
We see things fall down, we understand about gravity.
There is no projection there because it is fact…there is evidence for it.

Every religion says that God manifests in some way in the world. IOW, there is evidence for God and God’s characteristics.
However, the atheists and agnostics come along and say “that’s not evidence” or “that’s not God”.

That might depend on the individual.
For me, true or "real knowing is that which has been proven. It’s objective, not subjective.

About knowing - that could be anything from really knowing and understanding and so-called knowing which is simply based on one’s own desires and illusions.

So “true knowing” is objective. Why talk about subjective “knowing” at all? In what sense is it “knowing”? that just seems to confuse things.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Every religion says that God manifests in some way in the world. IOW, there is evidence for God and God’s characteristics.

If a person chooses to see the universe as God manifesting in some way. But that’s because there is God for him/her to begin with.
Even as an agnostic, I can see that there might possibly be Something which caused all of this. IF, AND ONLY IF, there is a god, I can see the creative quality there. It would be totally illogical to say that there can be nothing but i can’t presume to know what it is.

However, the atheists and agnostics come along and say “that’s not evidence” or “that’s not God”.

But is it evidence or is it only as a result of how our minds work? We can only go so far in our assumptions and speculations about God because there is nothing, is there, that can actually be proven - I mean made certain.

I think and i may be wrong that many atheists and agnostics don’t necessarily feel that there is positively no God - by God, I mean that Something which caused it all into existence.
They simply cannot “see” all of the speculation and guesses and assumptions and conclusions which others hold to.
Because we evolved into what we have become, we like to re-create this Something into our own image and likeness.

I cannot say that there is not Something which caused all of this (how would I go about disproving that) but I also can’t really say how it was caused. Sure, we can google it but how far does get that us? It still doesn’t point to who what where when questions with reference to God except what we choose to believe because it makes us feel more comfortable not living with the questions.

That might depend on the individual.
For me, true or "real knowing is that which has been proven. It’s objective, not subjective.

So “true knowing” is objective.

That is just the way I chose to describe it, phyllo. Language is not that easy to make clear. We all express ourselves differently.
If knowing is right and true, is it not based on objectivity I mean seeing the world as it can actually be seen.
In other words, gravity does not mean that humans are capable of ascending into the sky without a plane, et cetera.

Why talk about subjective “knowing” at all? In what sense is it “knowing”? that just seems to confuse things.

[/quote]
You do have a point there. lol
I can’t recall if I said subjective knowing. That would actually be what we think and feel - not necessarily reality.
Some believe in angels. That to me is subjective knowing. Probably a better word for it would be “belief”. But belief is not knowing - it’s subjective, not objective.

[Ecmandu]

You can’t use argument from ignorance or greatness to justify God…

“We don’t know stuff which can be known, therefor, someone knows it, because it can be known, duh”

That’s not an argument of merit.

The argument from greatness, is “you are a meaningless speck of shit unable to fathom greatness compared to the vastness of the cosmos … But some beings are not, therefor God exists”

Now let’s get real here.

God is defined as supreme creator of everything…

Every dictionary in the world defines God this way.

So God created God??

Then the theists backpedal, from every dictionary in the world and declare that God made everything except God and that God was uncreated, unmade.

Then they use the watchmaker argument to prove God. Contradiction.

We all have this issue called suffering, which is inhabiting a state of being that we don’t want to.

So God makes us be in ways we don’t want to be (creator of all this)

It’s a contradiction of free will that anyone would be in a state of being that they don’t want to be in.

So, we can conclude from the creator hypothesis, that the creator did not endow us with free will .

This conclusion then settles us upon the God hypothesis as automotons, incapable of proving anything about reality, because we only “prove” what we were programmed to prove.

This means a God cannot be proven by us by the logic that we are only programmed to believe whatever we believe.

Logically, God cannot even prove God to us.

Therefor, the point is moot.