Let's think this through ... God

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.

Does one need say any more?

Because we were made automotons…

My argument earlier demonstrated that if one being is in a state of being it doesn’t want to be in, we are axiomatically automotons.

You can’t read right.

This is accurate. The other problem is that when Ecmandu uses certain terms like “parallel processes” what he means is ‘some nebulous bullshit lurking in his mind that is subject to constant change and revision’. I haven’t read this thread past your post, but I am certain without looking that Ecmandu’s argument has completely changed 3-4 times over the course of the conversation.

For all of us “assholes and logical ignorami–”
“One can smell a rotten egg without being able to lay a fresh one.”—Walter Kaufmann
If this makes no sense, blame “parallel processing.”

Actually, my main “assumption” is that no being wants to be where it doesn’t want to be. By definition.

This is another way to state God wants the best life possible.

In order for a God to have meaning, as every dictionary defines it, God is the creator of all things… Look it up!

God is also defined as knowing everything about that creation (to seperate God from other beings ) unlike us mere non God, who only know some things about what we create.

You and everyone else in this thread accused me of projecting my mere humanness onto God, when in fact, contradicting my definitions here (which are in every dictionary on earth) it is YOU who is doing the projection.

I’m sure you haven’t seen this argument before, so I can understand everyone in this threads’ confusion.

God is defined as creator of all. (Every dictionary in the world has this definition of God)

As the creator of all, there is no unknowns to God, otherwise it would contradict 1, (there’s something outside of Gods creation)

In order to know everything, you must know how people feel and how they think, that’s a necessary subset of knowledge.

God is a being.

No being wants to be where they don’t want to be (true by definition)

Thus, if any being in existence is in a state of being they don’t want to be in, god must be there as well.

Beings are in states of being they don’t want to be in.

Thus God created the entire universe to be where God doesn’t want to be.

No being wants to be in a state of being where they don’t want to be (true by definition)

Thus, the creator of the universe is a moron.

God is defined properly to distinguish and define God as the least moronic of all beings.

Thus all beings are morons, if even God is a moron.

That’s about as far as I can stretch the argument.

Actually not!! I can disprove God being all knowing by saying there’s something outside of God to create a universe for itself that God doesn’t want to be in.

If we seem confused, it may be that we’re wondering why you still bother to post here.

I mean, if I was going to treat you as a rational adult, I’d point out how laughable it is to begin an argument with “God must be X because the dictionary says so”, and how God knowing everything doesn’t follow at all from God creating everything.

But you aren’t a rational adult, you’re a crazy person. You can’t even understand what I just wrote or respond to it in any meaningful way. I’m basically talking to myself.

Doesn’t it seem strange to you that despite you not actually having any experience with philosophy of religion, you spend all your time telling everybody how it is instead of asking questions? I know more about philosophy of religion than you do. Many people here do. Why don’t you start by asking some of them what it means for God to have created the universe, or how that might interact with his knowledge, instead of telling everybody as if you know a damn thing about it? Your behavior isn’t the behavior of somebody who wants to learn (which is what an ignoramous should be trying to do) or even teach. That’s why you constantly try to start debates with people, and don’t even care what the debate is. You don’t give a shit about theism or religion or logic or any of this. You’re just desperate to prove to a bunch of strangers that your brain works properly. And you have utterly failed in this.

Trying asking, instead of telling. Or, if you’re too deranged for that to be an option for you, try shutting the fuck up altogether and go fingerpaint with the rest of the lunatics.

You probably should post that as a general introduction message to all members here.
… not that it would actually change much.

I feel the same way about you Uccisore…

Creating everything for example means that you create all causes and all effects (not just some), to know you created them all, you must know them all.

What’s interesting about your brand of hypocrisy, is you don’t even bother to type rebuttals, instead asking me to ask you. Even further, when and if I do, you dodge again by saying I won’t read or understand them. That’s called contradiction.

Believe it or not Uccisore, I’m one of the few posters on this board who actually addresses each post with a rebuttal, rather than dodging, sniping and ad homming for years on end … I don’t make myself a hypocrite to this regard. It’s easy to look smart when you’re a coward. It actually takes real courage to argue something rather than going on about how horrible the other person is without addressing the topic.

I didn’t say dictionary, I said EVERY dictionary.

Consider this:
God creates gravity and He understands the cause and effect of gravity. That does not mean that God knows the exact position of every atom that has been moved somewhere by gravity. Maybe God doesn’t care about that.

There’s nothing to think about…

God created the cause and effect of gravity; in order to create the effect, you must know it.

You’re using your limited human understanding, anthropomorphizing to avoid the obvious, to create every effect, you must know it.

If God gave us free-will, he gave the free-will for women to act like cunts and bitches.

Of course, God doesn’t exist, and free-will is overrated. Deep down everyone likes a lil’ BDSM.

Even in the absence of bdsm… Free will can certainly be over rated. People, more than anything in the cosmos, want to be in a state of being where they want to be.

You don’t get to decide what ‘creating everything’ means. You aren’t a theist. You aren’t the one who uses the term to apply to God. You are stipulating the precise definition of other people’s jargon in the particular way you need it in order to shoot it down again. That’s a classic straw man argument. For example, no theist who believes in free will beliefs that God creates all causes and effects.

I do to people that read them. When I used to type rebuttals to your points, you demonstrated over and over that all you did was skim the first few sentences and ignore the rest. You aren’t worth the time, because you’re mentally unfit.

Which is ridiculous, in addition to merely irrelevant. You don’t know what it says in every dictionary, remember?

Mentally unfit eh? Fitness… sigh

Uccisore… You know what my problem is to you …,

I go from a to d without doing b and c…

My mind works that fast, that it never occurs to me that people don’t do b and c… That’s my fault.

Your using the black swam argument for dictionaries …

Find me a dictionary that defines god solely as a feathered animal that squabbles and I’ll believe you.

What’s actually hilarious about this, is you really used the argument that only a theist can know what defining creating everyone is.

Uccisore… You’re not as smart as me. It pisses you off.

Case in point. You utterly failed to reply to my point about why you can’t claim God creates all causes and effects. This is what you do repeatedly when somebody takes a moment to respond to a point of yours- you ignore them to write some bullshit instead.

Whoa dude!!!

Delusional!!

If God creates EVERYTHING!!!

God creates all causes and effects… (A subset of everything)

I can’t tell if you’re lying or if you’re delusional

And Uccisore …

Free will is defined as writing the constituents of your own thoughts and experiences…

Do we have free will ?

Where? Is that in every dictionary too, or did you just make it up? Why the hell would a free will mean you write your own experiences or even all of your own thoughts? That’s dumb.

Ah, three posts later, after calling me a liar, delusional, and declaring your superior intelligence, you finally decide to look back and see the point you ignored and make some half-assed attempt at a response. This is why nobody wants to debate you. Nobody is going to read through three posts of you ranting and raving like a fucking lunatic in the hopes that there’s two sentences in there somewhere related to the actuall point. Why couldn’t you have just asked me this in your first reply?

It doesn’t matter whether we have free will, what matters is that plenty of Christian philosophers of religion think we do, therefore your premise that God creates all causes and effects is controversial- i.e., not obvious, i.e., not something anybody is going to accept without an argument, i.e., your argument against the existence of God is full of holes: it is not true that being the creator of the universe entails being the direct creator of all causes and their effects. Free will is just one example of experiences or effects God might not have access to.