Chuck the god(s)

[Unveiled Artist]

Piggybacking my other post

That’s an entirely different scenario and doesn’t invalidate mine. The simple point remains that it’s perfectly possible for someone to view the available evidence but reach an incorrect conclusion, including a conclusion of something existing which actually doesn’t.

There are countless of examples of people concluding that something exists, sometimes with strong evidence and reasoning, only for it to turn out that we’re wrong.

But the question is sense nothing exists, by what means can they draw a conclusion and why try?

All we have is interpretation though, it’s our sole route of access to reality. That’s what evidence is really about, not every consequence of something’s existence or state, only the consequences we can observe and relate to that thing. If your question was literally just about actual existence, you’d essentially be asking “Can something exist if it doesn’t exist?” which is obviously meaningless.

The question has nothing to do with how evidence is used and its definition.

Im asking since there is no tree in the middle of a tennis court

1. How and by what criteria would you use to find out there was a tree? (Not what. Not why. As is)

2. What would motivate you to find this criteria when nothing is there to even begin to find the tree to begin with?

Im using "tree" instead of the word something. But there is nothing there. I just used it for convinence since the word something (X) isnt cutting it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am very simple, folks.

There is no tree. Nothing. Squat. Open space. Absent of any thing.

Can you find criteria to validate the tree is present?

What motivates you to find the criteria?

The questions are as is.

 

[HonestJoe]

The question has nothing to do with how evidence is used and its definition.

The question is about us finding evidence. Finding it is “using” evidence and clearly the definition of the term is relevant.

1. How and by what criteria would you use to find out there was a tree? (Not what. Not why. As is)

We’d use the same criteria and processes regardless of whether the tree existed or not, since we wouldn’t know whether it existed or not until after we’d use them.

2. What would motivate you to find this criteria when nothing is there to even begin to find the tree to begin with?

Maybe someone told us there was a tree there, we knew a tree used to be where the tennis court now is or some optical illusion made it look as if there was a tree in the court.

Im using "tree" instead of the word something. But there is nothing there. I just used it for convinence since the word something (X) isnt cutting it.

Something worked fine, it just opens up the variations and possibilities that mean the answer to your question can’t be a definitive “no”. Coming up with a single carefully manufactured example which fits the hypothesis doesn’t come close to proving it valid in any situation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I should have used a different word than evidence. In person, there is no question about words. They either answer it or they dont.

The question is about us finding evidence. Finding it is “using” evidence and clearly the definition of the term is relevant.

Example. If I answered my own question.

Does it make sense: No.

Can I find evidence for something that isnt there? No. Id need something to go off of first before I can use it as evidence to validate an existence of something (anything) present. Since its just an absence of space, even if I wanted to, I wouldnt have tools to even know where to start.

Whats my motivation? I like using my imagination; so, probably curiousity or just playing with my imagination

I honestly cant find sense in trying to find something to varify something is there were there is none. But, people have different reasons to look anyways.

We’d use the same criteria and processes regardless of whether the tree existed or not, since we wouldn’t know whether it existed or not until after we’d use them.

What criteria would you use to determine something tangible and not naked to the human eyes exist in an open and empty space?

Maybe someone told us there was a tree there, we knew a tree used to be where the tennis court now is or some optical illusion made it look as if there was a tree in the court.

Could be good reasons. I wouldnt do it just because. Would you? If so, why?

Something worked fine, it just opens up the variations and possibilities that mean the answer to your question can’t be a definitive “no”. Coming up with a single carefully manufactured example which fits the hypothesis doesn’t come close to proving it valid in any situation.

Because you guys look into a question that in person would be answered and dismissed in a heartbeat. I used tree to be more specific. It didnt work for some of you. Others got it. Its not a theological question. I was just curious about what, how, and why. I do more explaining in my threads than talking.

 

[HonestJoe]

Can I find evidence for something that isnt there? No. Id need something to go off of first before I can use it as evidence to validate an existence of something (anything) present. Since its just an absence of space, even if I wanted to, I wouldnt have tools to even know where to start.

I think you’re putting things in the wrong order. Logically it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re apply evidence to confirm something is present or to confirm something isn’t present. You seem to be assuming a conclusion (the thing isn’t present) before any evidence has been considered and using that as a reason not to bother investigating at all. I don’t see that as any difference to assuming a thing does exist so not bothering to investigate.

What criteria would you use to determine something tangible and not naked to the human eyes exist in an open and empty space?

I don’t see it really matters. Evidentially, there isn’t anything special about the visible light spectrum. We use all sorts of different methods to study and assess phenomena (especially in the technological age) but at the level we’re discussing here, the principles are the same regardless.

Could be good reasons. I wouldnt do it just because. Would you? If so, why?

I don’t think anything is really done “just because”. It’s just a term because we don’t know or don’t want to tell what our reasoning is. Everything we do (or don’t do) will have some form of logical reasoning behind it (however flawed that logic might be).

Because you guys look into a question that in person would be answered and dismissed in a heartbeat. I used tree to be more specific. It didnt work for some of you. Others got it. Its not a theological question. I was just curious about what, how, and why. I do more explaining in my threads than talking.

If you weren’t asking a theological question, you probably shouldn’t have posted it in the Theological Concepts section under the title “Chuck the god(s)”.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you’re putting things in the wrong order. Logically it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re apply evidence to confirm something is present or to confirm something isn’t present. You seem to be assuming a conclusion (the thing isn’t present) before any evidence has been considered and using that as a reason not to bother investigating at all. I don’t see that as any difference to assuming a thing does exist so not bothering to investigate.

I don’t see it really matters. Evidentially, there isn’t anything special about the visible light spectrum. We use all sorts of different methods to study and assess phenomena (especially in the technological age) but at the level we’re discussing here, the principles are the same regardless.

I don’t think anything is really done “just because”. It’s just a term because we don’t know or don’t want to tell what our reasoning is. Everything we do (or don’t do) will have some form of logical reasoning behind it (however flawed that logic might be).

If you weren’t asking a theological question, you probably shouldn’t have posted it in the Theological Concepts section under the title “Chuck the god(s)”.

This is making something not meant for debate very complicated. Dont look too much into it.

There is nothing there
Are there ways to verify something exist when (the conclusion is) nothing does
Why would one want to lool for something that does not exist at all.

Take out the word evidence and verify.

Light spectrums exist. Im referring to what doesnt
Not different methods of study. Just a two part question. As is. No details involved.
Yes. We can do things just because (without reason)
I can lift my hand for no reason. I do it just because. No purpose. Do Not Look into It. Its just a statement.

If the question is blunt, why make it difficult?

Its not a debate section

 

[HonestJoe]

This is making something not meant for debate very complicated. Don’t look too much into it.

You don’t think it’s complicated. I think it’s more complicated that you giving it credit for.

There is nothing there
Are there ways to verify something exist when (the conclusion is) nothing does
Why would one want to lool for something that does not exist at all.

If you already have a conclusion that there is nothing there, you must have already looked for the thing that doesn’t exist. You can’t know whether it exists or not until after you’ve looked for it.

 

[Ponder This]

If a tree does not exist in the middle of a tennis court (if there is no true; nothing there; absent of an item or person), does it make sense to find ways to confirm a tree is not actually there? And what motivation would you do so, if you decide to go about it?

What motivated you to ask a question about a tree that does not exist? Yet, you are asking me what my motivation is for confirming a proposition that you put forth?

Ha. You're making this more complicated than it is. I hate doing topics sometimes because you all read more into it rather than reading it as. is.


A computer (cell-phone, whatever) is in front of you. It's there. It exists. No illusions. No metaphysics.



The body of facts is you're typing on it. To make it simple as possible.



Something that does not exist (if your computer was not there), it would be absent of the object that was once in front of you. So, there is nothing that exists/present/it's absent of the computer. We say there is nothing there. To keep it simple.



Change the word to nothing there or lack of something.



If there is no refrigerator, what would motivate you to conclude there is evidence of one regardless if you conclusions are 99.0% correct?

A lot of you conclude firmly that, say, a murder happened and a guy stood over the dead man, you'd conclude that person killed the dead. The person with the knife may be hanging over the dead guy, even touches his knife on it

that does not mean that's evidence (the blood and guy dead) of murder. It's a high probability according to most of our judgement; but, that does not make it fact.

You're complicating a very simple question.



Nope.

If a tree is not in front of you, why find reasons to believe it's there; and, if you do, what motivates you to do so?



No. Not that complicated.



There is no tree in the middle of the court. Hence why it's non-existent. It's not there.

Since there is no tree, why try to find reasons to look for one; and, what is your motivation behind looking for a tree (and ways to find it) when it is not there to begin with?

Unless that person thinks there is a tree there despite our senses saying otherwise.



Thank you. This is the answer to the question.

Why do you think someone would look for one if you're not sure there is evidence to be found of a tree in the middle of the court (that isn't there)?

Curiosity, maybe? I don't know.



What would motivate you to do that?



You were going well in the last two statements. This floored me. I think you kind get what I'm asking now?

Let's see if I understand what you are asking:

Suppose that there is a tennis court and that there are no trees in the middle of the tennis court.

Now suppose that we have an observer, Miss O.
Why would Miss O look for evidence of trees or evidence of the absence of trees in the middle of this tennis court that does not have trees in the middle of it.

Miss O could be motivated by any number of factors:
She likes trees.
She hates trees.
Someone asked her about the tree in the middle of the tennis court.
She read that some tennis courts have trees in the middle of them.
etc.

So there is no single answer to this question of motivation. We could just go on coming up with possible motivations.

Another question is: At what point did Miss O become convinced that there were no trees in the middle of the tennis court?

To answer that, we have to consider how Miss O observes the tennis court.
We could assume Miss O is a normal person with normal eyes and that the tree we are talking about is a normal tree with normal visible properties.
Thus, Miss O has the capability to perceive trees (or other visible objects) in the middle of a tennis court and can do so reliably (meaning without error).
From this fact we can derive that because there really isn't a tree in the middle of the tennis court, Miss O will not perceive such a tree. Observation constitutes evidence.
To be clear, what Miss O is able to confirm is the absence of things known and not the absence of things unknown.

For example, viruses are not visible with the naked eye. People who don't know anything about viruses lack the natural capability to tell if viruses are present or absent with the naked eye.

So if Miss O looks at the middle of the tennis court and states:

'There are no viruses in the middle of the tennis court.'

Then what evidence does she have that viruses are not present in the middle of the tennis court?
The entire question revolves around the capability to observe a thing and the thing having characteristics that are definable in terms of observable phenomena.
Let's say her brother, Mr B, tells her that there is a virus in the middle of the tennis court. What should she do?

There is only one tennis court.
There is nothing on the court
No interpretation: statement of fact. Nothing.
If you came on the court to find a tree, but what method snd criteria would you use to find something that has no proof nor interpetation of any possible existence?

Trees admit of observable characteristics that define them as being trees. The fact that a person knows what a tree is indicates that there is an interpretation for the possible existence of a tree. It is on that basis that trees are said to be found or not found in the middle of tennis courts. A person does not need to look for trees specifically to observe that a tennis court is devoid of objects. A tennis court devoid of objects is not only devoid of trees, but also devoid of cats or dogs or tennis balls. The presence of any object is an exception to the void in the middle of the tennis court. Emptiness is the natural state of things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What motivated you to ask a question about a tree that does not exist? Yet, you are asking me what my motivation is for confirming a proposition that you put forth?



Let's see if I understand what you are asking:

Suppose that there is a tennis court and that there are no trees in the middle of the tennis court.

Now suppose that we have an observer, Miss O.
Why would Miss O look for evidence of trees or evidence of the absence of trees in the middle of this tennis court that does not have trees in the middle of it.

Miss O could be motivated by any number of factors:
She likes trees.
She hates trees.
Someone asked her about the tree in the middle of the tennis court.
She read that some tennis courts have trees in the middle of them.
etc.

So there is no single answer to this question of motivation. We could just go on coming up with possible motivations.

Another question is: At what point did Miss O become convinced that there were no trees in the middle of the tennis court?

To answer that, we have to consider how Miss O observes the tennis court.
We could assume Miss O is a normal person with normal eyes and that the tree we are talking about is a normal tree with normal visible properties.
Thus, Miss O has the capability to perceive trees (or other visible objects) in the middle of a tennis court and can do so reliably (meaning without error).
From this fact we can derive that because there really isn't a tree in the middle of the tennis court, Miss O will not perceive such a tree. Observation constitutes evidence.
To be clear, what Miss O is able to confirm is the absence of things known and not the absence of things unknown.

For example, viruses are not visible with the naked eye. People who don't know anything about viruses lack the natural capability to tell if viruses are present or absent with the naked eye.

So if Miss O looks at the middle of the tennis court and states:

'There are no viruses in the middle of the tennis court.'

Then what evidence does she have that viruses are not present in the middle of the tennis court?
The entire question revolves around the capability to observe a thing and the thing having characteristics that are definable in terms of observable phenomena.
Let's say her brother, Mr B, tells her that there is a virus in the middle of the tennis court. What should she do?



Trees admit of observable characteristics that define them as being trees. The fact that a person knows what a tree is indicates that there is an interpretation for the possible existence of a tree. It is on that basis that trees are said to be found or not found in the middle of tennis courts. A person does not need to look for trees specifically to observe that a tennis court is devoid of objects. A tennis court devoid of objects is not only devoid of trees, but also devoid of cats or dogs or tennis balls. The presence of any object is an exception to the void in the middle of the tennis court. Emptiness is the natural state of things.

Ha. You have a knack for extending this question based on assumptions. I'll go back and digest. Pun intended.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What motivated you to ask a question about a tree that does not exist? Yet, you are asking me what my motivation is for confirming a proposition that you put forth?

Do you think it makes sense for Miss Q to be motivated or have the desire to look for a thing that does not exist-regardless if she can see it or not?

For example, if no one told you anything nor word about a Zingerbug, how would you develop curiousity or any motivation unless you can read my mind. Know the keys of the universe. Whatever.

So there is no single answer to this question of motivation. We could just go on coming up with possible motivations.

But since there is nothing, there is no reason toneven think of one. Unless she decides to use her imagination.

Another question is: At what point did Miss O become convinced that there were no trees in the middle of the tennis court?

How can she be? There is none.

How can she be convinced whether a tree is there or not when the point of the whole thing is there is no tree to start with.

None

Like many god-thinkers, you're making too much of life. There is no "tree."

 

[Ponder This]

Do you think it makes sense for Miss Q to be motivated or have the desire to look for a thing that does not exist-regardless if she can see it or not?

Why does Miss Q have to see the tree before she is motivated to look for it? How does that make sense?
After all, I'm usually motivated to look for my keys when I don't see them.

For example, if no one told you anything nor word about a Zingerbug, how would you develop curiousity or any motivation unless you can read my mind. Know the keys of the universe. Whatever.

Are you asking a deep question about people's imaginations? I might well wonder where the fantasy and sci-fi sections of the library came from. It seems that people are just imagining things all the time.

But since there is nothing, there is no reason toneven think of one. Unless she decides to use her imagination.

So... Is there some problem with her using her imagination?

How can she be? There is none.

How can she be convinced whether a tree is there or not when the point of the whole thing is there is no tree to start with.

None

Like many god-thinkers, you're making too much of life. There is no "tree."

I thought you didn't want to make this about gods?
​

I didnt want the question to be around god(s) because that is a different path of question and answer Im not looking for in my OP.

Maybe you are looking for a particular answer to your question... except that the answer you want doesn't exist... so no one can provide it for you. You are free to look for that answer. What motivates you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Don't look too much into it

Why does Miss Q have to see the tree before she is motivated to look for it? How does that make sense?

I'm asking rather than making a statement.

I'm asking you two step questions:

You do not know there is a Zingerbug next to you. I did not tell you. You had no reason to know it exists. No one gave you any knowledge of it. So, how can you just automatically be motivated to find this Zingerbug when its existence (presence whatever) is not known to you in any way at all.

1. Does it make sense for you to want to find this Zingerbug?

2. What would be your motivation to do so? (If it does not make sense say so; that is what I'm asking: does it make sense? If yes, explain. If no, explain.

The question is as is. Nothing behind it.

After all, I'm usually motivated to look for my keys when I don't see them.

However, if there was no keys to begin with and you had no concept of keys, would you be motivated to find them? If so, why? Explain. If not, why? Explain.

Are you asking a deep question about people's imaginations? I might well wonder where the fantasy and sci-fi sections of the library came from. It seems that people are just imagining things all the time.

Nope. Looking more into it than there is at face value.

So... Is there some problem with her using her imagination?

It's a statement; as is. Nothing behind it. If there is no motivation, unless she uses her imagination (for whatever reason), there would be no reason to think there is a Zingerbug or tree in the middle of the tennis court.

I thought you didn't want to make this about gods?

I don't. It's a comparison. A statement. Not a topic of conversation. I made an analogy of a tree, doesn't mean I want to talk about trees themselves.

Maybe you are looking for a particular answer to your question... except that the answer you want doesn't exist... so no one can provide it for you. You are free to look for that answer. What motivates you?

I did answer that question to give an example of what I'm asking. Other people got it. For some reason, you're going on about something that either it makes senses or it doesnt.

The specific questions are:

1. There is no tree. Can Miss. Q give support to how a tree is present when it is not?

2. If so, why would she do it? No one asked her. No one gave her information about it. Unless it's from her imagination, I don't see another motivation to look for one unless she just thought it up for no reason and decide tell the rest of the world there is a tree present when there is not.

Who knows. I'm asking if it makes sense not the logistics of what evidence is and so forth. You're the only one who doesn't get it. Other people already answered the questions. Interesting answers, to those who do answer it without going around the moberry bush.

 

[Ponder This]

You do not know there is a Zingerbug next to you. I did not tell you. You had no reason to know it exists. No one gave you any knowledge of it. So, how can you just automatically be motivated to find this Zingerbug when its existence (presence whatever) is not known to you in any way at all.

I don't need to know every possible thing that can fit in a cup to see that the cup is empty.

By saying that it is empty, I've excluded the presence of Zingerbugs without needing to know anything about Zingerbugs. Your question only makes sense if my capabilities of perception are not capable of detecting the presence or absence of Zingerbugs. But in that case, I'm already motivated improve my capabilities of perception as much as possible and, therefore, as long as it is possible that a method of detecting the presence or absence of Zingerbugs could exist, it doesn't matter that I don't know anything at all about Zingerbugs.

As for things for which are well and truly unknowable, your question does not have an answer. You are already looking for something that does not exist (an answer to your question). And, in fact, you have no knowledge in any way at all of what you are looking for.

However, if there was no keys to begin with and you had no concept of keys, would you be motivated to find them? If so, why? Explain. If not, why? Explain.

I am already motivated to discover things I have no knowledge of. This is called 'learning'.

It's a statement; as is. Nothing behind it. If there is no motivation, unless she uses her imagination (for whatever reason), there would be no reason to think there is a Zingerbug or tree in the middle of the tennis court.

It suffices that she has at least one reason to look for things that aren't there (her imagination). She does not require multiple reasons.

I don't. It's a comparison. A statement. Not a topic of conversation. I made an analogy of a tree, doesn't mean I want to talk about trees themselves.

Okay... in that case, explain how a person being a 'god-thinker' is relevant.

I did answer that question to give an example of what I'm asking. Other people got it. For some reason, you're going on about something that either it makes senses or it doesnt.

Hmmm. Are you referring to other people in this thread? Is there a post I should look at in particular as an example of someone who 'got it'?

1. There is no tree. Can Miss. Q give support to how a tree is present when it is not?

For simplicity. We'll assume she is a perfect observer and say 'no'. But that doesn't mean she can't look for evidence that a tree is there (and not find it). (Obviously an imperfect observer can find evidence for things that are not there).

2. If so, why would she do it? No one asked her. No one gave her information about it. Unless it's from her imagination, I don't see another motivation to look for one unless she just thought it up for no reason and decide tell the rest of the world there is a tree present when there is not.

It suffices that there exists at least one possible motivation. Why do you dismiss the answer when you are given it? Your inability to 'see' other motivations does not mean other motivations do (or do not) exist.

Who knows. I'm asking if it makes sense not the logistics of what evidence is and so forth. You're the only one who doesn't get it. Other people already answered the questions. Interesting answers, to those who do answer it without going around the moberry bush.

I'm sorry if my answers upset you or were too long or confusing. I've tried to answer your question. Good luck finding your answer!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't need to know every possible thing that can fit in a cup to see that the cup is empty.

By saying that it is empty, I've excluded the presence of Zingerbugs without needing to know anything about Zingerbugs. Your question only makes sense if my capabilities of perception are not capable of detecting the presence or absence of Zingerbugs. But in that case, I'm already motivated improve my capabilities of perception as much as possible and, therefore, as long as it is possible that a method of detecting the presence or absence of Zingerbugs could exist, it doesn't matter that I don't know anything at all about Zingerbugs.

As for things for which are well and truly unknowable, your question does not have an answer. You are already looking for something that does not exist (an answer to your question). And, in fact, you have no knowledge in any way at all of what you are looking for.



I am already motivated to discover things I have no knowledge of. This is called 'learning'.



It suffices that she has at least one reason to look for things that aren't there (her imagination). She does not require multiple reasons.



Okay... in that case, explain how a person being a 'god-thinker' is relevant.



Hmmm. Are you referring to other people in this thread? Is there a post I should look at in particular as an example of someone who 'got it'?



For simplicity. We'll assume she is a perfect observer and say 'no'. But that doesn't mean she can't look for evidence that a tree is there (and not find it). (Obviously an imperfect observer can find evidence for things that are not there).



It suffices that there exists at least one possible motivation. Why do you dismiss the answer when you are given it? Your inability to 'see' other motivations does not mean other motivations do (or do not) exist.



I'm sorry if my answers upset you or were too long or confusing. I've tried to answer your question. Good luck finding your answer!

You're making something simple to everyone else very very complicated. I know I took developmental math once and our teacher was in his late seventies and he taught calculus and high level math. He got impatient and yelled at the class and at me for not getting questions fast enough.

He was making complicated very simple questions that, if he had patience and awareness, did not take much to answer or clarify words if need be.

I'm very simple. The word existence means as is and commonly used in English. Absence, nothing, not there, are just the same. Not there, is not the same as invisible, so that shouldnt have been part of the equation. We can add hypotheticals as in Miss Q can have a motivation for anything but the question was specific to what motivation "related" to the non-existant object, would make her want to find something that is not here at all.

Fast forward to make this a god question. I took out god on purpose because it (not he) has too many variables.

Since there is NO god at all, and no one gave you any info about gods existence, what motivation or reason would you have to search for something that does not exist.

Some people have an inner inkling that guides them. Others just think after awhile they need a purpose.

I never understood that. So, taking out personal issues and godfilled variables, Im asking the question at its raw form.

What motivates a person to search for something that does not exist at all. Does it make sense? If yes, why. If it doesnt, why? Explain.

Edited spelling.

 

[Ponder This]

You're making something simple to everyone else very very complicated. I know I took developmental math once and our teacher was in his late seventies and he taught calculus and high level math. He got impatient and yelled at the class and at me for not getting questions fast enough.

He was making complicated very simple questions that, if he had patience and awareness, did not take much to answer or clarify words if need be.

I'm very simple. The word existence means as is and commonly used in English. Absence, nothing, not there, are just the same. Not there, is not the same as invisible, so that shouldnt have been part of the equation. We can add hypotheticals as in Miss Q can have a motivation for anything but the question was specific to what motivation "related" to the non-existant object, would make her want to find something that is not here at all.

Ah well, you tried. I answered all this already.

Fast forward to make this a god question. I took out god on purpose because it (not he) has too many variables.

Since there is NO god at all, and no one gave you any info about gods existence, what motivation or reason would you have to search for something that does not exist.

Some people have an inner inkling that guides them. Others just think after awhile they need a purpose.

I never understood that. So, taking out personal issues and godfilled variables, Im asking the question at its raw form.

What motivates a person to search for something that does not exist at all. Does it make sense? If yes, why. If it doesnt, why? Explain.

Edited spelling.

If you are going to assert the non-existence of gods before you look for them, then what is there to say?
I might as well say there is no milk in the fridge before looking in the fridge and therefore say there's no point to looking in the fridge.

It doesn't matter if you are talking about gods or some other things about which you have no knowledge whatsoever. If you are going to close your eyes and say there is no tree in the tennis court, then I guess we're done here. Go live your life. Just keep telling yourself that gods don't exist. After all, there's no way you could ever be wrong about something so simple. Right? Good luck with that.

As for me... I have no idea what tomorrow brings. I'll open my eyes and embrace whatever arises.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Does it make sense and can you find evidence for something that does not exist?

A philosophical question. Short. As is. Has no christian objectives.

Edit.

Sorry. This just came to my attention. Background:

"To chuck something" is an English idiom that means to disregard something or an idea. Chuck it/disregard it/ dont bother with it.

I didnt want the question to be around god(s) because that is a different path of question and answer Im not looking for in my OP.

Who is Chuck the God?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Who is Chuck the God?

Ha. Chuck, the god? He's arouns here somewhere. Dont know. (Have you heard the expression before?)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ah well, you tried. I answere

They're statements of observations not questions

If you are going to assert the non-existence of gods before you look for them, then what is there to say?

I might as well say there is no milk in the fridge before looking in the fridge and therefore say there's no point to looking in the fridge.

A. Whether it makes sense; why, why not, motivation. Nothing else (statement not question)

B. Thats my point. You make it complicated. The milk is god. No god exists. People still look in the fridge for milk. Makes no sense to me. I took out god since it opens a can of warms. I should have kept it in. Scrap the tennis analogy. The fridge one is better.

It doesn't matter if you are talking about gods or some other things about which you have no knowledge whatsoever. If you are going to close your eyes and say there is no tree in the tennis court, then I guess we're done here. Go live your life. Just keep telling yourself that gods don't exist. After all, there's no way you could ever be wrong about something so simple. Right? Good luck with that.

Dont answer the post if you just going to say in so many words, "why ask the question." Leave the question be. I see that a lot. Member X creates a thread. Asks a question. Non-believers ans couple staff answer with "thats not me" statements. If its not them, add something productive or ignore the thread.

Id have a hundred dollars or so for every thread with the first reply: but thats not me. Silly. I bite my tongue and others I just ignore as to stop derailing my threads with nonesense. Not all god ones mind you. Must be a RF thing.

 

[Ponder This]

UOTE="Unveiled Artist, post: 5651653, member: 55631"]They're statements of observations not questions[/QUOTE]

The lack of existence is an observation. Very simple.

A. Whether it makes sense; why, why not, motivation. Nothing else (statement not question)

It does not make sense. Very simple.

B. Thats my point. You make it complicated. The milk is god. No god exists. People still look in the fridge for milk. Makes no sense to me. I took out god since it opens a can of warms. I should have kept it in. Scrap the tennis analogy. The fridge one is better.

Not complicated. Very simple. You simply disagree.

Dont answer the post if you just going to say in so many words, "why ask the question." Leave the question be. I see that a lot. Member X creates a thread. Asks a question. Non-believers ans couple staff answer with "thats not me" statements. If its not them, add something productive or ignore the thread.

If the question doesn't make sense, then I will say so. I'm sorry if you find that unproductive. Very simple.

Good luck with your thread!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It does not make sense. Very simple.

You take a hell of a lot of space to just use this as your answer to my post and as an option explain why or how you came to that conclusion. whatever else you add is irrelevant to the OP unless there is something constructive.