Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[richardlowellt]

Really ?
Did you know that people said the same about others that spoke about Black Swans not so long ago? Lack of evidence... for all of time untill australia was discovered.
Ups!



People who spoke about the non-existent black swan were of course wrong given that swans are apart of the naturalistic realm. I don't think you can make a comparison between things from the naturalistic realm and things imagined.




As others have told you before. You didnt disproove it yet and it would amaze me if you could. All you can say (and i would agree with you then) is that the chance for a peter pan to exist is nearly 0 since...... (put your list here).
And of course practically nobody assumes a Peter Pan to exist.
Neither do I assume a God exists.
But its something else to claim anything was disprooven.


That is why we rely on reason and logic, for me reason and logic are enough to disprove.


I dont smoke.


Again that silly mistake.

IF something is prooven to be wrong then there is NO possibility that it is right.
If you want to say there is NO possibility then you must KNOW all possibilities that MIGHT exist. Even YOU should know that for example there is a legitimate possibility that outside of this universe there exists something. That there is an outside at all.
Even you should know that there could be multiple universes.
I do not NEED to show you that it really is so. It is sufficient that it is possible.
If it is possible then you cant disproove it. You can only state that the chances are infinitesimal low.


I'll stick to my guns here and say there can be no probabilities from realms such as the supernatural. Of course your right science does deal in search for answers about things unknown, but this search takes place in the naturalistic realm where things can be tested and examined.

Thats the way science works my friend. Perhaps you should pay some attention to the method when it comes to evaluating different theories or ideas.
Its the very same thing reasonable people do.


I never said I or anybody else knew about such a realm. I stated that it COULD exist. And you cant disproove that.
Actually you cant even proove to me that you are not just an imagination by me which of course according to your logic would mean that there is no probability that you exist. Which begs the question what i actually do here.:areyoucra


Yes, yes, lots of things could exist but logic keeps us grounded, or at least some of us.



The chance of God to exist is infinitesimal small

Infinitesimal--A value approaching zero, I just give it a little kick using reason and logic and------now it's zero.

 

[McBell]

I just give it a little kick using reason and logic and------now it's zero.

Yet this is nothing more than your opinion.
One that is reached with faulty logic.

I have no problems with you sharing your opinion.
I do have problems with you making false claims..I.E. that you "logically" proved gods non-existence.

 

[richardlowellt]

Yet this is nothing more than your opinion.
One that is reached with faulty logic.

I have no problems with you sharing your opinion.
I do have problems with you making false claims..I.E. that you "logically" proved gods non-existence.

Faulty logic in your opinion. I really should have to prove no god exists, anyone using reason and logic should come to the same conclusions I have. It is kind of foolish I agree to try disprove something non-existent.

 

[McBell]

Faulty logic in your opinion.

Actually, it is a fact that your logic is faulty.
It has been pointed out and explained several times and in numerous different ways by more than one person.

Your fanatic like conviction to your beliefs are much likened to that of a fanatical theist.

I really should have to prove no god exists, anyone using reason and logic should come to the same conclusions I have. It is kind of foolish I agree to try disprove something non-existent.

Problem is that people are not so blinded by their agenda that they, like you here in this thread, promote faulty logic as proof.

 

[richardlowellt]

Your fanatic like conviction to your beliefs are much likened to that of a fanatical theist.



I have no beliefs, foolish of you to think so after all I have said. Fanatical theist's will try and convince you the non-existent does in fact exist, and not only exist, but is involved in our everyday physical realm. I simply lack any belief in things imagined. A reasonable person would come to the same conclusion, that things make believe or things only imagined are not real, can't see what's fanatical about that.

 

[Falvlun]

Apparently you are NOT paying attention, the natural cause of the universe is but a small piece of the argument, go to my post #146.

I realize you have a lot of reasons for believing that God does not exist, but none of your reasons add up to a knock down proof of possibility of God= zero, which is what you insist upon claiming. Additionally, some of your reasons utilize pretty abysmal logic.

People who spoke about the non-existent black swan were of course wrong given that swans are apart of the naturalistic realm. I don't think you can make a comparison between things from the naturalistic realm and things imagined.

Except that if God exists then he would be a part of the natural realm, ie, he would be a part of nature, as nature includes all things that exist. You are assuming that God is merely an imagined being, and then using that assumption to prove that he is merely an imagined being. :areyoucra

You are still using circular logic.

Infinitesimal--A value approaching zero, I just give it a little kick using reason and logic and------now it's zero.

Except that reason, and especially logic, does not operate with "little kicks". If you have a number that is approaching zero, by definition, it can not be zero.

 

[richardlowellt]

I realize you have a lot of reasons for believing that God does not exist, but none of your reasons add up to a knock down proof of possibility of God= zero, which is what you insist upon claiming. Additionally, some of your reasons utilize pretty abysmal logic.


Except that if God exists then he would be a part of the natural realm, ie, he would be a part of nature, as nature includes all things that exist. You are assuming that God is merely an imagined being, and then using that assumption to prove that he is merely an imagined being. :areyoucra

You are still using circular logic.


Except that reason, and especially logic, does not operate with "little kicks". If you have a number that is approaching zero, by definition, it can not be zero.

I think my multiple reasons do add up to a non-existent God. Would you care to point out which of the reasons I listed utilize "abysmal logic"

So you KNOW that if god exists he would be part of the natural realm, that he would be part of nature, in that case this god would now occupy a realm in which, like all things in that realm, could be tested, examined from all angles, it would no long be hidden, just something imagined. I can only surmise that this god does not exist in the natural realm or we would have physical evidence of him/she/it. No I am not assuming god is an imaginary being, until someone can show me physical evidence I KNOW it is imagined.

I have an infinitesimal amount of sand, infinitesimal----a value approaching zero, I sweep what little there is away, I now have ZERO, no sand.

Also if what you propose about this god being part of nature, what happened to humans being made in his image and likeness?

 

[McBell]

I have no beliefs, foolish of you to think so after all I have said.

Now comes the denial.

You believe that you have logically proven that God does not exist.
The fact that you have done no such thing does not even slow down your declaration of such.

Fanatical theist's will try and convince you the non-existent does in fact exist, and not only exist, but is involved in our everyday physical realm. I simply lack any belief in things imagined. A reasonable person would come to the same conclusion, that things make believe or things only imagined are not real, can't see what's fanatical about that.

Again you go to great lengths to miss the point.

Of course, I am going to assume that you are not intentionally being dishonest...

 

[The Neo Nerd]

God made you with allergies so that other people can find ways to cure them. Suffering is there for us to remove it.

I have psoriasis and it's really bad atm. I itch all the time and im having trouble sleeping because of it and god has done this to me so others will have something to do.

Your god really is an *******.

-Q

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

People who spoke about the non-existent black swan were of course wrong given that swans are apart of the naturalistic realm. I don't think you can make a comparison between things from the naturalistic realm and things imagined.

Well what you "think" might even be correct but the problem is that the premise" imagined" is already not proven.
Take a pantheistic god or a panentheistic one and you run into trouble.
Say that God incorporates the natural world.
You could even assume some "alien" lifeform being outside this universe and having made us like we have aquariums with fish in it.
The idea that god is solely "imagined" is something you didn't proove.

That is why we rely on reason and logic, for me reason and logic are enough to disprove.

And i am some stupid jerk or what ?
Your logic is not conclusive. Your conclusions are false.
This has been said already to you. You run in circles always making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps you should spend some time THINKING with REASON and LOGIC about what was said to you.
I get the impression you run a dogmatic antitheistic approach that is not (in essence) different from the "reason and logic" i hear by YECs.

I'll stick to my guns here and say there can be no probabilities from realms such as the supernatural. Of course your right science does deal in search for answers about things unknown, but this search takes place in the naturalistic realm where things can be tested and examined.

The second sentence is valid. The first is wrong and doesnt even follow from the second. Science deals with things that are empirically observable. Anything beyond this universe is (currently) unobservable. Hence it is not part of science.
You rule out any possibilities from other realms. However you didn't argue that through. What logical proof do you want to present that nothing CAN POTENTIALLY exist outside of our realm?
You just declare so but you dont reason it.

Yes, yes, lots of things could exist but logic keeps us grounded, or at least some of us.

Indeed, very few. And at least in THIS discussion i wouldnt count you amongst them. You realize that lots of things COULD exist and THIS is exactly what logic states. If you stood by that statement then logic would have kept you grounded. Instead however you push in an extra kick of "faith" or "conviction" and say "God CANT exist...".
Again the difference between you and me:
ME: "Lots of things could exist but since there is no evidence i do not assume anythings existence until prooven"

YOU:"Lots of things could exist but god actually cant"

Infinitesimal--A value approaching zero, I just give it a little kick using reason and logic and------now it's zero.

Again .. first sentence correct. Second wrong. You give it a little kick using "faith" or "conviction" or "dogma" or "agenda" or "ideology".
Reason and logic is totally absent in your second sentence.

It might be good to think about it and to not immediatly reply. I am not an "enemy" here. As a matter of fact you are simply (logically) wrong in your conclusions.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

It is kind of foolish I agree to try disprove something non-existent.

Indeed it is. Thats why no reasonable man would demand such a disproove.
All the more interesting that you claim to have one which of course is impossible.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I have an infinitesimal amount of sand, infinitesimal----a value approaching zero, I sweep what little there is away, I now have ZERO, no sand.

Again wrong.
If there is an infinitesimal amount of sand, infinitesimal----a value approaching zero, you sweep what little there is away and then there is STILL an infinitesimal amount of sand. It just is somewhere else, namely 2 meters away !

 

[Falvlun]

I think my multiple reasons do add up to a non-existent God. Would you care to point out which of the reasons I listed utilize "abysmal logic"?

:areyoucra

I believe that is exactly what I (EDIT: We) have been doing.

 

[richardlowellt]

Again wrong.
If there is an infinitesimal amount of sand, infinitesimal----a value approaching zero, you sweep what little there is away and then there is STILL an infinitesimal amount of sand. It just is somewhere else, namely 2 meters away !

Ok, on the kindergarden level, I have a can with infinitesimal amount of sand, I pore out the sand and now I have ZERO sand in my can. Hey look, I went from infinitesimal to zero!

 

[richardlowellt]

Now comes the denial.

You believe that you have logically proven that God does not exist.
The fact that you have done no such thing does not even slow down your declaration of such.


Again you go to great lengths to miss the point.

Of course, I am going to assume that you are not intentionally being dishonest...

I really do remember you saying you were done, I guess not. I don't deny anything, I have no belief in things imagined, thats not a belief it's a LACK of belief.

 

[McBell]

I really do remember you saying you were done, I guess not. I don't deny anything, I have no belief in things imagined, thats not a belief it's a LACK of belief.

and yet again we see you go out of your way to strawman.

You BELIEVE you have proven that god does not exist.
Problem is that your BELIEF does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[richardlowellt]

Well what you "think" might even be correct but the problem is that the premise" imagined" is already not proven.
Take a pantheistic god or a panentheistic one and you run into trouble.
Say that God incorporates the natural world.
You could even assume some "alien" lifeform being outside this universe and having made us like we have aquariums with fish in it.
The idea that god is solely "imagined" is something you didn't proove.


And i am some stupid jerk or what ?
Your logic is not conclusive. Your conclusions are false.
This has been said already to you. You run in circles always making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps you should spend some time THINKING with REASON and LOGIC about what was said to you.
I get the impression you run a dogmatic antitheistic approach that is not (in essence) different from the "reason and logic" i hear by YECs.


The second sentence is valid. The first is wrong and doesnt even follow from the second. Science deals with things that are empirically observable. Anything beyond this universe is (currently) unobservable. Hence it is not part of science.
You rule out any possibilities from other realms. However you didn't argue that through. What logical proof do you want to present that nothing CAN POTENTIALLY exist outside of our realm?
You just declare so but you dont reason it.


Indeed, very few. And at least in THIS discussion i wouldnt count you amongst them. You realize that lots of things COULD exist and THIS is exactly what logic states. If you stood by that statement then logic would have kept you grounded. Instead however you push in an extra kick of "faith" or "conviction" and say "God CANT exist...".
Again the difference between you and me:
ME: "Lots of things could exist but since there is no evidence i do not assume anythings existence until prooven"

YOU:"Lots of things could exist but god actually cant"


Again .. first sentence correct. Second wrong. You give it a little kick using "faith" or "conviction" or "dogma" or "agenda" or "ideology".
Reason and logic is totally absent in your second sentence.

It might be good to think about it and to not immediatly reply. I am not an "enemy" here. As a matter of fact you are simply (logically) wrong in your conclusions.

I did think it was obvious that I was speaking of the Abrahamic God, the the author of Genesis, or so they say.

So God is NOT imagined, there is some kind of evidence that I am not aware of. I am imagining a large earth worm with a human head, female, and horses legs, no tail though, is this something NOT imagined, do you think there is the slightest possibility that it might exist?

Nothing can exist outside of this realm because any other realm is non-existent. Is there another realm besides the supernatural realm? Do you have any information about other realms or the supernatural realm? If so I would love to hear about either.

Lot's of things can exist, as part of the naturalistic realm, But God being from a realm that does not exist,cannot.

You may tell me I'm wrong with my conclusion all day if you like, thats what sites like this are for.

1.) There is one and only one naturalistic realm.
2.) All things in that realm exist, even things we may not know about or can imagine.
3.) The Abrahamic God is not from the naturalistic realm.
4.) If not from the naturalistic realm then there is no other place he could exist.
5.) Conclusion, no God exists.

Now you will tell me, How do you know another realm does not exist. Then I will ask you, How do you know that pixie dust does not exist? Do you think it is possible for this dust to exist and perform as we have seen? And remember I am talking about the Abrahamic God, Gods, gods, gods, were did they all come from, some many gods, they can't all be real can they?

 

[Falvlun]

1.) There is one and only one naturalistic realm.
2.) All things in that realm exist, even things we may not know about or can imagine.
3.) The Abrahamic God is not from the naturalistic realm.
4.) If not from the naturalistic realm then there is no other place he could exist.
5.) Conclusion, no God exists.

Prove # 3, please.

 

[richardlowellt]

:areyoucra

I believe that is exactly what I (EDIT: We) have been doing.

No you haven't, go back to post 146, observe the list and point out to me which ones display ABYSMAL logic.

 

[richardlowellt]

and yet again we see you go out of your way to strawman.

You BELIEVE you have proven that god does not exist.
Problem is that your BELIEF does not hold up to scrutiny.

Most BELIEFS by the religious do not hold up to scrutiny, your apparent belief in Peter pan certainly does not hold up to scrutiny.