does god exist

[Storm]

I highly doubt it.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Right. Because that way you're just plain better than us. If we could "learn to do what you do", then you wouldn't be much better than us. This way, you can think of yourself as "awesome" and "very superior to us". Got it. If that's what gets you off, go right ahead. I just think it would be good for you to step into reality at some point.

Using your logic, an eagle is better than you because its eyesight is superior.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The battle goes on because it is natural for different forms of energy to react with each other. But instead of using this knowledge to positive ends, all we accomplish is to manipulate this energy into hatred, fear, and war. No matter how hard we try, we cannot separate that which is inseparable. We cannot destroy that which can never be destroyed. Body, mind, spirit. Science, philosophy, religion. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Physical energy, thought energy, spiritual energy. It can never be destroyed. It can only change form. A scientist can turn into a believer of religion. A believer in God can turn into a believer of science. A philosopher can turn into either one. In the end, it makes no difference. Energy never rests, for even when it is motionless, it has power. It has potential.

 

[Magic Man]

Well my friend, I have been reported thrice, and they were all from Atheists. Mind
you that I was sure that Atheists could take more than the heat generated by my
posts. I thought Christians would be more vulnerable. But that's okay. I haven't been
banned yet.

Ben

Keep this up and it won't be long. You really need to stop with this playing the victim. This is now the fourth post I've seen from you in the past 3 days or so talking about this. It was old the first time. Now, it's just plain ridiculous. Even if this is the way you feel, saying this doesn't bring anyone to empathize with you. It only makes you look worse. So, give it a rest already.

*Yet another crying atheist baby who hasn't reported Ben's posts...but is starting to feel like maybe he should.

 

[Magic Man]

Using your logic, an eagle is better than you because its eyesight is superior.

No, that would be your logic, my friend. By your logic, you are better than everyone else because you "see something that we don't", when in reality you just see things differently than we do and you assume it's because you're better.

By my logic, that makes an eagle different than me, not better. There are many ways that I consider myself better than an eagle, and many ways that I consider the eagle better. You consider the eagle better because you only look at that one facet.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Consider this thought for a minute.... Even nothingness can be a form of energy. Potential energy. Why? Because if that dark matter, nothingness, open space, or whatever you want to call it did not exist, how could we move "through" it. You can't move "through" something that does not exist. The Universe would have to be pretty small if there was no potential "space" for it to expand. The space to move something gives it that potential to move in the first place. How could something like the "Big Bang" even happen if there was "nothing" to contain the resulting cosmos in? So for this to happen, there has to have been the energy of potential, open, infinite space (spirit), the energy of physical elements or matter (body), and the energy of will, want, or need to create in the first place (mind). Does that make any sense?

In somewhat of a religious sense, the Spirit of God exists as the Potential to Create. The Mind of God exists as the will, thought, or desire to create. And the Body of God exists as the Physical elements necessary to have creation. What else is there? You're beliefs are as good as mine though. After all, how can you "dis-believe" something that actually "exists" in one way, shape or form?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No, that would be your logic, my friend. By your logic, you are better than everyone else because you "see something that we don't", when in reality you just see things differently than we do and you assume it's because you're better.

By my logic, that makes an eagle different than me, not better. There are many ways that I consider myself better than an eagle, and many ways that I consider the eagle better. You consider the eagle better because you only look at that one facet.

From post #198:

You see only other fish, the rocky shore, sandy bottom and the sky because that is where you look. It is exceedingly disingenuous to say no one has told you how to develop the proper tools to see more than the obvious. There are endless resources, from The Interior Castle and the Cloud of Unknowing to The Impersonal Life and scriptures and books for every taste. Plunge into all of them and pay attention not to the words, but to how meanings resonate and go with what resonates.

Mystics in every generation and every tradition have said, "Come, and see for yourself. Empty the mind of other fish and whatever they might say (I'm one of them). Look not to the rocky shore, sandy bottom or the sky above." Learn to unlearn, to let go of reason's predominance in your awareness. For the power of reason is such that, in the subtle matters of the Spirit, it is like tenderizing a fish with a sledge hammer.

But no. You prefer to think you are being insulted.

 

[Nade]

OK.

For starters...

Assertion is not proof.

Then you might want to think about why I asserted what I did. Why can there be no omniscient and omnipotent god?

BS.

Assertion is not proof.

 

[Storm]

Then you might want to think about why I asserted what I did. Why can there be no omniscient and omnipotent god?

I'm not going to do your job for you. Make your own damn argument.

Assertion is not proof.

Oh, goody. Yet another troll who resorts to "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Nade]

Off the top of my head:

- you assume an omnipotent God, and then go on at length about what that God must do and cannot do. This is contradictory.

- your argument is based on your narrow definitions of certain terms. These narrow definitions exclude reasonable meanings for them.

- you take a number of leaps that have no justification whatsoever. For example, the claim that God could not know the universe unless that God was present everywhere and equally distributed.

- it seems you think that writing "CASE CLOSED" in caps somehow supports a crappy argument.

And the most important way you were wrong:

- you approached the discussion with open hostility rather than respectful disagreement.

Hostility. Right. Well, to answer your list:

Omnipotent, by definition means that god can do all things. If there is something that he can not do, then he is not omnipotent. And I say CASE CLOSED, because that's an absolute fact. If the definition of something doesn't match something in reality, then the something in reality does not equal the thing in definition. I don't see how you say this is unjustified. It's perfectly justified, because if A does not = B... well, it's just the rule of the game. The equivalency principle. I didn't make this up. It's standard fare, at the base of mathematics, the scientific method, and philosophy.

I never said that god must do this, or god can not do this. If, however, either of the two applies to your god, then he can not be omnipotent. Once again, I say CASE CLOSED, because it is logically proven that if the definition of something does not match up with that something in reality, then they can not be equivalent. I don't see how you can say this is unjustified.

Now then, IF your god is omnipotent and omniscient, then BY YOUR OWN definition, he 1) knows everything, and 2) can do everything. God's future actions are a thing. I, once again, say CASE CLOSED, because the word "thing" applies to EVERY"THING". If something is not a "THING", then it is "NO"THING, and thus does not exist. If god's future actions were not a "THING", then they would be nothing, and thus, would not exist. I, once again, say CASE CLOSED, because this is not open to interpretation. "thing" "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are all very well defined. And the assertions I am making are all tautalogies in logic. CASE CLOSED.

So, God's future actions are a "thing". That means that God would "know" of them. But then we have a contradiction. IF, IF, IF, god knows his future actions, then he can not change them. BECAUSE IF, IF, IF, god changes his future actions, then he could not have "known" that he would do so, otherwise, he would not have changed his future actions, but just acted them. But that would mean that god did not know everything. IN order to maintain that he knows everything, god would have to refrain from changing his future actions, then. But that would impose a limit on God's omnipotence. Thus, he would NOT BE omnipotence.

This is why I say CASE CLOSED. Because I have not assumed anything other than what someone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient god would assume. And thus, by using only tautologies, have realized an inherent contradiction.

It has long been said, since the 1700's that logical statements must be free of contradictions. If there is a contradiction, then the statement can not stand. This is not a tautology. But if you want to question it, you're in uncharted territory, have nothing to go by, and most likely erasing the distinction between logic and the illogical, which, by definition, is a statement that realizes a contradiction.

This is why I say CASE CLOSED. No assumptions. Everything is defined. The argument is reduced to a tautology. In mathematics, philosophy, science, ect, an argument reduced to a tautology is considered a "proof". It is a "proof". A "PROOF". Not a theory. Not evidence. I do not assert this blindly. Ask any mathemitician.

It seems whenever someone says something is a fact on these forums( I could be wrong. I don't mean THIS to be a fact), that the standard response is "not neccessarily" or, "assertion doesn't mean proof." I agree that assertion doesn't mean proof. That's why I've taken the time to define what someone might mean by "god", and logically follow the results of the statement "there is an omnipotent and omniscient god".

I have not just asserted this. I have taken the time to reason in tautologies. If you think that I havent, then tell me where. Note, for this to be possible, you must be well versed in what it means to have a tautological argument. I would appreciate it if you would define what a "tautological proof" is before trying to see if my tautological proof in reality matches the definition of tautological proof. CASE CLOSED.

On a side note. I did say that I didn't want anybody talking any more about an omniscient or omnipotent god. That's a fact. But since the universe often does not align with what we humans "want", I will not be so selfish as to get upset or angry if someone continues to discuss this. True, I don't want it to happen. But since when does anyone give a rat's a** about what anyone ELSE wants?

That's a fact.

 

[Storm]

Penguin is an atheist, Nade. You're preaching to the choir, and they still say you fail.

 

[Nade]

I'm not going to do your job for you. Make your own damn argument.

If you want to know something, you ask questions. If you want to understand something, you need to ask questions as well. It is not my "job" to make you know or understand whatever I have to say. However, if you're going to make any statement about what I said, it would be a good start if you understood it.

That said, if you wanted to understand what I said. You might have asked some questions and reasoned through it. Correct? If you're not going to do that, then you wouldn't understand what I was saying. But If you don't understand my argument, then why should I take seriously your assertion that "assertion is not proof"?

If you want me to take you seriously, you might want to know your stuff. If you want to know your stuff, youg might want to start by understanding your opponents statements. If you want to understand your opponents statement, you might want to ask questions, correct? I assumed that you wanted me to take you seriously, so I suggested a question you might like to ask. But it's not my job to ask those questions for you.

Also, I sense you are irritated by my words. You called me a troll who uses some sort of kindergarten tactic. Calm down. I really don't have anything against you.

Oh, goody. Yet another troll who resorts to "I know you are but what am I?"

[/quote]

It is my standard procedure to never make an assertion without qualifying it through a proof. You pointed out that assertion is not a proof, but you made that as an assertion that is not a proof. This is a valid contradiction, and I see nothing wrong with pointing it out through subtle wordplay. However, if you insist on a more direct statement:

You said that assertion is not proof. But you made an assertion without a proof to back it up. Would you please provide the necessary proof? (or not. I can't remember what the assertion was. Only that it didn't have the neccessary proof. I'm not too interested in it anyway.)

Now then. I think you are taking my posts a bit too personally. True, I'd rather be rude and reckless than respectful and polite, but I am giving it an honest effort to be polite, even if it is begrudging politeness. To me, argument is a sport. I don't take it seriously.

Take it easy.

 

[Nade]

Penguin is an atheist, Nade. You're preaching to the choir, and they still say you fail.

Preaching to the choir is no excuse for not putting forth an argument to be debated. If he disagrees, then I am all to happy to debate it further.

 

[Storm]

1) I understood your argument. It was wrong.

2) I'm not taking it personally, I'm just treating you with the sme condescension with which you're treating everyone else. If you don't like it, maybe you should work on your own attitude.

 

[Runewolf1973]

God or what I call "Energy" does not need to know everything, see everything, or do everything. Energy can change yes, but as it changes, it's new forms have their own limitations as to what they can or can not do. A rock contains chemicals, atoms, and substance, but by it's own energy it can not move from one place to another or "see" as our eyes do. Given enough energy, it can change it's state into a different form though. So I say that Energy (God) or what ever you wish to call it, is not All-Powerful, and can not do just Anything in Any given form, but Can change into different forms as it reacts with other forms of energy. From what I understand of it,energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, but can only change form. But light energy by itself can not spontaneously grow legs and walk away. Each form has it's own purpose and action or reaction, but they all work as One. This is my explanation for people who ask,"why does God not heal everyone?" I say "God" can not heal everyone, but given the right tools and knowledge we can heal ourselves with that energy that is within us. In a sense "God" does not perform any "miracles", it is our belief-energy that makes miracles happen. "God" does not destroy us, we destroy ourselves. "God" does not care whether you believe in "God" or not. The only thing that is of real significance is the fact that we as forms of energy "exist". We have the choice to do with it what we want. All the tools are right in front of us, we just need to learn how to "use" them. That is the great "Gift" given unto All things.

 

[Nade]

1) I understood your argument. It was wrong.

Well, now I'm interested in understanding your statement. As you've said before, "assertion is not proof", eh? So I shall ask the question: How am I wrong? Could you give an argument? This IS a debate. I won't bite, I promise.

2) I'm not taking it personally, I'm just treating you with the sme condescension with which you're treating everyone else. If you don't like it, maybe you should work on your own attitude.

[/quote]
I think you're mistaking condescension for a couple of letters in all caps and the words "case closed". This is a debate. People are supposed to put forth arguments and try to poke holes in them. I put forth my argument. That penguin's fellow was nice enough to try to poke holes in it. Where's the condescension in that?

Of course, I did put CASE CLOSED and FACT in my argument. I believe it is/was. It's your job to explain otherwise. or am I missing something?

No worries. I have no problem with being treated condescendingly. It's not like I expect everyone to be nice to me in a debate forum, lol.

here, for you: :shout

 

[Nade]

God or what I call "Energy" does not need to know everything, see everything, or do everything. Energy can change yes, but as it changes, it's new forms have their own limitations as to what it can or can not do. A rock contains chemicals, atoms, and substance, but by it's own energy it can not move from one place to another or "see" as our eyes do. Given enough energy, it can change it's state into a different form though. So I say that Energy (God) or what ever you wish to call it, is not All-Powerful, and can not do just Anything in Any given form, but Can change into different forms as it reacts with other forms of energy. From what I understand of it,energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, but can only change form. But light energy by itself can not spontaneously grow legs and walk away. Each form has it's own purpose and action or reaction, but they all work as One.

Well! If your god = Energy. Then I guess the OP is asking wether energy exists! Since it does,(otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation) I guess you can say CASE CLOSED, as well!

 

[Storm]

Well, now I'm interested in understanding your statement. As you've said before, "assertion is not proof", eh? So I shall ask the question: How am I wrong? Could you give an argument? This IS a debate. I won't bite, I promise.

Does the word "unfalsifiable" mean anything to you? An omnimax God is unfalsifiable. Saying you have disproven it is not the same as actually doing so.

It is NOT a fact. The case is NOT closed. You are NOT that impressive. Hence, my response of "BS" to your self-congratulatory rant.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well! If your god = Energy. Then I guess the OP is asking wether energy exists! Since it does,(otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation) I guess you can say CASE CLOSED, as well!

There is a reason why under my heading Religion, I wrote All of the Above. There is something everything has to offer. Not everything is always beneficial or works for everyone, but it is nonetheless part of what "exists". I don't believe you are necessarily wrong or right, you just have another form and view of what IS. Atheism is fine, but just remember to keep an open mind. That is one thing that should never be closed.

 

[Nade]

Does the word "unfalsifiable" mean anything to you? An omnimax God is unfalsifiable. Saying you have disproven it is not the same as actually doing so.

Unfalsifiable apparently means that a statement can not be proven false. You make the statement that an omnimax God is unfalsifieable. I assume the 'statement' here, is "god exists". So far so good.

Unfortunately, you neglect to back up your statement that an omnimax god is unfalsifiable. Remember, Assertion is not Proof, and I believe the concept of "burden of proof" makes it your job to prove all that you've asserted.

So then, how is it that an omnimax god is unfalsifiable? We're not discussing whether god exists here, but rather the statement that an omnimax god is unfalsifiable. This statement assumes that the god is "omnimax"/"omnipotent", so please take into account my previous "case closed" argument when explaining your proof.

As for me, I shall make the statement that "an omnimax god is falsifiable." And I shall back it up with the argument I made previously. If that argument disproves an omnimax god, and I believe it does, then the statement, "an omnimax god is unfalsifiable" is disproven.

This implies, however, that my statement, "an omnimax god is falsifiable" can be disproven by the disproving of my proof that an omnimax god is falsifiable. If you thus, can prove that my tautological argument is incorrect through means of a tautological statement, then you have won and the debate is yours!

But until then, " An omnimax god is falsifiable" and I prove it with my tautological argument from before.

It is NOT a fact. The case is NOT closed. You are NOT that impressive. Hence, my response of "BS" to your self-congratualtory rant.

Well, I beleive you said that assertion is not proof, if I remember correctly. Please explain the proof of your statement that my tautological arguement is NOT a fact, and that the case is NOT closed.

And after you've done that, I'll have a jolly good time trying to poke holes in it.
:yes: