Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Sargonski]

I have stated God to be all powerful. I have stated being all things makes this so. I have stated that all is formed from that substance; thus we are that substance. As a lesser god than that God , we require honor because we lack that which we have yet to achieve, so in this is our learning, our need, and our becoming ... to be what we are and greater than we are present day. The spin, the ebb and flow between worlds, from life to death to life to death to life to death x infinity seems a reasonable understanding, knowing that my transformation will be with, and in that to which I belong.

and I have stated the fallacy of the God of Nothing/ God of Everything is not an allowed answer --- yet you keep disobeying

You state God is "all powerful" then you state that God is a Human. Do you not see the contradiction ?
A human is not all powerfull nor everywhere nor everything.

Does this God of yours interact directly with humans .. like the anthropomorphic God YHWH ? .. changing the course of events... intervening in the experiment from time to time ... or is everything pre-ordained .. really no such thing as free will .. all just a super computer animation playing out .. OR - does the programmer interject from time to time ? OR . perhaps the Programmer just watches -- but there are other "Gods" that are playing the game .. and it is these who interact with the humanoids from time to time ..

 

[Sargonski]

Sorry, I guess I missed that. but yes you got it. You could probably provide evidence for the existence of the Sun which wouldn't exist if there was no sun.

you seem fascinated by the circular existentialist fallacy .. If the moon was not made of Green cheese then it wouldn be made of Green Cheese .. and the famous .. Do you walk to work or take your lunch ? the latter not from you but on same level of intellectual curiosity .. all having nothing to do with your failure to clarify your question .. and dfine this God .. or Gods you are referring to .. you have deflected way off the page .. the topic is evidence for God .. and you have been asked which God .. and what are the powers of this God .. looking for a "rational definition" of what kind of power the entity need have in order to be classified as a "God" ... you fell off cart at Tree .. a big fail because Human's have more God like power than a Tree .. .. you seem to be having difficulty understanding the rules of the game. The human has the ability to mainfest a thought into physical reality through force of will... BUT -- only inside its own body. The God will have the ability to manipulate matter and energy outside its physical body .. though force of will .. thus distinguishing itself from the Human .. being able to manifest a thought into physical reality externally. The difference between you willing your thumb to move and willing the couch to move.

and remember .. "God of Everything- God of Nothing" are not allowed .. these not being rational choices.

Now - define this God you are talking about.

 

[Balthazzar]

and I have stated the fallacy of the God of Nothing/ God of Everything is not an allowed answer --- yet you keep disobeying

You state God is "all powerful" then you state that God is a Human. Do you not see the contradiction ?
A human is not all powerfull nor everywhere nor everything.

Does this God of yours interact directly with humans .. like the anthropomorphic God YHWH ? .. changing the course of events... intervening in the experiment from time to time ... or is everything pre-ordained .. really no such thing as free will .. all just a super computer animation playing out .. OR - does the programmer interject from time to time ? OR . perhaps the Programmer just watches -- but there are other "Gods" that are playing the game .. and it is these who interact with the humanoids from time to time ..

Angels, gods, and God ... who is who, and what of the hierarchy? I don't believe in nothing. This is a very different statement than I don't believe in anything. The first, by rule of language is implying that "something is believed in". Also, there' is an exception to every rule (if not more). I presume "if not more" to be true, due to not truly knowing it to be. The other statement is true per the double negative clause or rule. I'm sure you know all this, so what is false? Is false nothing? I wouldn't suggest it to be nothing, but it could be, and I don't find nothing invaluable, or maybe I do, no matter ... nothing is something or it isn't, and nothing has value, or it doesn't AND does have value. False can be just as useful as true, depending on how we apply it to life and how we choose to navigate.

I do not see the contradiction, aside from your demand or insistence that I apply your rule to how I understand life and our place in it, if not my own place specifically. I am still able to view you, the angels, God, me, and nothing as one. One meaning inclusive, and how all life operates everywhere, which again is why God is ALL powerful and everywhere always. I am a polytheist and a monotheist, which is not anything new to the world or religion, particularly with the Abrahamic traditions I am coming from, namely Judaism as I understand it from a Christian perspective, which I name my own...

Ummm "perspective".

It's my own perspective in other words.

Edit: Neutrons, protons, and electrons are much like the universe. I had the thought wondering what a neutron might be associated with as it relates to something I would find tangible in life. I thought maybe it makes up the empty space of the cosmos, the protons would make up a certain type of matter for the grounding effect and these types are charged by the electrons, creating movement between types of protons, the magnetized and that not magnetized by the electrons themselves. Then I thought about the poles and sets, etc.

Anyway, and in any case. God is a nucleus, too.

 

[Nakosis]

"Proof" is not the goal. Logical validity is. This is philosophy, not science or a courtroom. And yes, it is based on various self-evident axioms. Like for something to come from nothing, "magic" (of some kind) is required.

Proof in this case just means the ability to provide a convincing argument for your claim.

When people claim evidence for God, they are proclaiming their own subjective evidence for their own subjective idealization of the philosophical proposition (theism) commonly referred to as "God". Such experience may feel axiomatic to them, but that does not make them philosophical axioms. So debating/negating them is not debating/negating theism. It's just a personal debate about how one chooses to conceptualize "God" and the results (as evidence) of acting on that conceptualization. There may be some individual value in such a debate but there is no philosophical value in it.

Not a big fan of philosophy anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

you seem fascinated by the circular existentialist fallacy .. If the moon was not made of Green cheese then it wouldn be made of Green Cheese .. and the famous .. Do you walk to work or take your lunch ? the latter not from you but on same level of intellectual curiosity .. all having nothing to do with your failure to clarify your question .. and dfine this God .. or Gods you are referring to .. you have deflected way off the page .. the topic is evidence for God .. and you have been asked which God .. and what are the powers of this God .. looking for a "rational definition" of what kind of power the entity need have in order to be classified as a "God" ... you fell off cart at Tree .. a big fail because Human's have more God like power than a Tree .. .. you seem to be having difficulty understanding the rules of the game. The human has the ability to mainfest a thought into physical reality through force of will... BUT -- only inside its own body. The God will have the ability to manipulate matter and energy outside its physical body .. though force of will .. thus distinguishing itself from the Human .. being able to manifest a thought into physical reality externally. The difference between you willing your thumb to move and willing the couch to move.

and remember .. "God of Everything- God of Nothing" are not allowed .. these not being rational choices.

Now - define this God you are talking about.

Here is the definition I'm using for God.
any deified person or object.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

Trees have been defied and so has the Sun as you pointed out.
There is no other definition of God necessary for this discussion.

 

[Sargonski]

Where did this God come from?


One reason as I said is God, like the mole on my back, is unknowable to me.

Where did you come from ? .. and why would you expect the answer to be any different than for this God that you don't know ?

How can you know something you can not define ? .. unlike the mole on your back .. even not knowing it is there ? -

What part of Define your terms -- is getting lost in the translation ?

What are you defining as God ? .. "The Sun" ? --- vundarbar .. where did this God come from ? and this God is anything but unknowable .. do you not know the Sun .. without which you would not be here ... this God is your creator ... have you any doubt about this ? ... Of course not ... you know this as a scientific fact.. as did the ancients know this scientific fact.

How is this God "Unknowable" .. just because you don't know where this God came from ? There are other Gods that you can know .. many that you have never met and don't know .. but that does not make these Gods "unknowable" .. nor is there absense of evidence for these Gods

 

[Nakosis]

Where did you come from ? .. and why would you expect the answer to be any different than for this God that you don't know ?

How can you know something you can not define ? .. unlike the mole on your back .. even not knowing it is there ? -

What part of Define your terms -- is getting lost in the translation ?

What are you defining as God ? .. "The Sun" ? --- vundarbar .. where did this God come from ? and this God is anything but unknowable .. do you not know the Sun .. without which you would not be here ... this God is your creator ... have you any doubt about this ? ... Of course not ... you know this as a scientific fact.. as did the ancients know this scientific fact.

How is this God "Unknowable" .. just because you don't know where this God came from ? There are other Gods that you can know .. many that you have never met and don't know .. but that does not make these Gods "unknowable" .. nor is there absense of evidence for these Gods

Thanks for responding for @BrightShadow but I suspect they are capable of responding for themselves.

 

[1213]

But it is possible since it is a natural process. And that the conditions on earth aren't right for abiogenesis to occur today it certain was in that condition at a time in the past, so your dismissal is not based on knowledge and clear thinking. And what alternative is there for abiogenesis?

Obviously God is the alternative.

If abiogenesis is possible, then it could be done in laboratory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You misinterpreted my post. I never claimed to have a proof of God. I called it 'my best argument'.

Your "best" argument consists of a bunch of bare statements with no evidence and a conclusion that doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This fundamental consciousness is the alleged direct experience of many sages/masters/mystics of the Advaita Vedanta tradition in their deepest meditative state. For those of us that have not reached that state we take what they say as a hypothesis. I don't see any way to prove that physically, so I am not claiming anything like proof.

A hypothesis is independently testable. So, no.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously God is the alternative.

How did you determine that?

If abiogenesis is possible, then it could be done in laboratory.

You mean, then it could potentially be done in a laboratory.
Surely you aren't going to say that just because it isn't figured out yet, that means it is "impossible"?

 

[F1fan]

Obviously God is the alternative.

Only for religious people. Gods are not known to exist, thus not factual. That means it isn't any kind of alternative to natural causes and phenomenon.

If abiogenesis is possible, then it could be done in laboratory.

Abiogenesis is completely possible. The whole process is consistent with how the universe woks. The Urey-Miller experiment showed it can occur in nature if the right environmental conditions existed.

If you're demanding a test for abiogensis, then we can demand a test for God. What test demonstrates any God exists, and that it can perform creating of life? If you can't provide any tests in reality, then the only alternative we have is abiogenesis.

 

[Sargonski]

Angels, gods, and God ... who is who, and what of the hierarchy? I don't believe in nothing. This is a very different statement than I don't believe in anything. The first, by rule of language is implying that "something is believed in". Also, there' is an exception to every rule (if not more). I presume "if not more" to be true, due to not truly knowing it to be. The other statement is true per the double negative clause or rule. I'm sure you know all this, so what is false? Is false nothing? I wouldn't suggest it to be nothing, but it could be, and I don't find nothing invaluable, or maybe I do, no matter ... nothing is something or it isn't, and nothing has value, or it doesn't AND does have value. False can be just as useful as true, depending on how we apply it to life and how we choose to navigate.

I do not see the contradiction, aside from your demand or insistence that I apply your rule to how I understand life and our place in it, if not my own place specifically. I am still able to view you, the angels, God, me, and nothing as one. One meaning inclusive, and how all life operates everywhere, which again is why God is ALL powerful and everywhere always. I am a polytheist and a monotheist, which is not anything new to the world or religion, particularly with the Abrahamic traditions I am coming from, namely Judaism as I understand it from a Christian perspective, which I name my own...

Ummm "perspective".

It's my own perspective in other words.

Edit: Neutrons, protons, and electrons are much like the universe. I had the thought wondering what a neutron might be associated with as it relates to something I would find tangible in life. I thought maybe it makes up the empty space of the cosmos, the protons would make up a certain type of matter for the grounding effect and these types are charged by the electrons, creating movement between types of protons, the magnetized and that not magnetized by the electrons themselves. Then I thought about the poles and sets, etc.

Anyway, and in any case. God is a nucleus, too.

First -- your God of Everything definition is equal to the God of Nothing .. try to understand why this is true .. as it has been stated to you numerous times .. but, if you do not understand .. then say so .. so it can be explained to you again .. in more understandable terms until you undertand this fallacy -- "the Existentialist fallacy" .. In claiming God is Everything .. you have defined nothing .. no differentiation .. no quantification .. Do you now understand ? ..... Yes/No ? .. or ask for further explanation.

Your contradiction .. Claim 1 - God is All Powerfull, Claim 2 - a human is God

Do you understand that 1 contradicts 2 .. because a human is not all powerfull .. and thus claim 2 is false .. Yes/No? or ask for further explanation.

The demand that you play by the rules .. was a request .. not a demand .. but it is strawman fallacy on your part .. and the request ---and a requirement to play this game .. is to not engage in logical fallacy. Thus when asked for a definition or a valid argument - burping up logical fallacy is not going to score any points in this game ..

Do you understand what an argument is ? ... many don't so no worries if you do not. An argument consists of 2 things 1) a premise or claim 2) explanation or evidence showing that this claim is true.

Now Logical Fallacy will not show a claim is true -- "false logic" in case you did not know what a fallacy was .. Thus while it is not demanded that you refrain from providing fallacy as 2) Support for Claim .. you are requested not to engage in this activity as there are no points to be scored for your team in this game ..

Do you now understand why it is good to play by the rules of logic and rational thought ? Yes/No

Do you understand why your definition for God in the context of its relationship to humanity is a monsterous fail ?
Do you understand that in claiming polytheism that you are contradicting your previous definition "God of Everything"

What Abrahamic Traditions are you coming from ? Your definition of God has nothign to do with Abraham's definition of God ??? sans your latest polytheism contradiction .... ??

Let us stop here --- go back and work on the above fallacies and contradictions .. on which the foundation of your belief system is built.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you don't believe in a God (creator of all things) and you want to know why a creator is even needed since (you believe) things can just create by itself out of nothing (thin air)?

Well, I don't really know what you believe but it surely seems like you believe things just created by itself!

No - that's your position, isn't it? That God just poofed himself into existence from nothing?

 

[George-ananda]

Your "best" argument consists of a bunch of bare statements with no evidence and a conclusion that doesn't follow.

That's fine if your interest is just in science.

Not being concerned strictly with current science, I consider even anecdotal claims in my overall best understanding of reality.

What are you not grasping about my position?

 

[Balthazzar]

First -- your God of Everything definition is equal to the God of Nothing .. try to understand why this is true .. as it has been stated to you numerous times .. but, if you do not understand .. then say so .. so it can be explained to you again .. in more understandable terms until you undertand this fallacy -- "the Existentialist fallacy" .. In claiming God is Everything .. you have defined nothing .. no differentiation .. no quantification .. Do you now understand ? ..... Yes/No ? .. or ask for further explanation.

Your contradiction .. Claim 1 - God is All Powerfull, Claim 2 - a human is God

Do you understand that 1 contradicts 2 .. because a human is not all powerfull .. and thus claim 2 is false .. Yes/No? or ask for further explanation.

The demand that you play by the rules .. was a request .. not a demand .. but it is strawman fallacy on your part .. and the request ---and a requirement to play this game .. is to not engage in logical fallacy. Thus when asked for a definition or a valid argument - burping up logical fallacy is not going to score any points in this game ..

Do you understand what an argument is ? ... many don't so no worries if you do not. An argument consists of 2 things 1) a premise or claim 2) explanation or evidence showing that this claim is true.

Now Logical Fallacy will not show a claim is true -- "false logic" in case you did not know what a fallacy was .. Thus while it is not demanded that you refrain from providing fallacy as 2) Support for Claim .. you are requested not to engage in this activity as there are no points to be scored for your team in this game ..

Do you now understand why it is good to play by the rules of logic and rational thought ? Yes/No

Do you understand why your definition for God in the context of its relationship to humanity is a monsterous fail ?
Do you understand that in claiming polytheism that you are contradicting your previous definition "God of Everything"

What Abrahamic Traditions are you coming from ? Your definition of God has nothign to do with Abraham's definition of God ??? sans your latest polytheism contradiction .... ??

Let us stop here --- go back and work on the above fallacies and contradictions .. on which the foundation of your belief system is built.

I'm human - I'm a man. A woman is part of man. Does this mean a man can give birth? No. That claim would be False. A woman can give birth, but is still of mankind. Big G God and little g god is a very similar premise (concept). We are children of the universe, birthed from the substance of which the universe consists, therefore we are also God, only we're the little ones whom the big one gave birth to.

 

[BrightShadow]

What created God?

You are probably aware of the arguments of "infinite regress". So lets not touch it yet. Lets explain something else first.

Let me try explaining in a different way...

Imagine yourself as a (lab-made) strain of E coli (bacteria) with the knowledge of a "microwave" engraved in your genetics and you are put inside a mouse who is living on a deserted island. You are not the only bacteria - there are others with you.
As an smart E coli - you are conscious and aware of your surroundings but your capability is limited and your resource to build tools for your scientific research are limited to whatever the mouse has inside its tiny body and whatever the mouse eats. You don't have the capability to generate electromagnetic pulse and you don't even know what that is.
Now some of the other bacteria told you about the 'microwave' because they can feel the presence of it more profoundly than you can. So now you are demanding to know - how this microwave (if it is out there) came into existence and how electromagnetic waves are absorbed into molecules of water, sugar and fat and causing it to vibrate and produce heat from the frictions.

This is just a scaled-down example to show your limitations on this earth to figure out about God. Of course I can use more complex objects to make my point but just the example of 'microwave' and the example of you being the 'E coli' inside a mouse - should tell you that you do not have the right tools to find the answer to the question you are seeking!
Microwave is created.
But God is not - because infinite regress is logically impossible!
We are here and that proves the creator is uncreated and exists forever (whatever forever means because the concept of time as we know it - was also created).

So since you don't have the right tools to figure out with certainty right now - what are your options?
You could reject all the things that cannot be proven to you right now - or you could use your common sense and some logical deductions and you could also look into the available testimonies and like solving a jigsaw puzzle - you could try to figure out which pieces goes where and make more sense.
When all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into correct spot - you may begin to see the actual picture! You may not have the actual Rose per se - in your hand but you may see the picture of the Rose that the jigsaw puzzle pieces were all about.

When you do see the picture - adopt it! Because it is better than saying you and your consciousness and the Rose - all came into existence out of nothing!

Is that unreasonable? If a fellow is God they shouldn't have any trouble proving it. He's an all powerful God, afterall.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! You won't call it "unreasonable" if you knew why we are here and what we are trying to prove.
Seek and find out.
I am not here to openly promote any religion! Also - the complete picture is scattered among multiple religions because hints (information) are given as a need to know basis by different prophets. At the moment - you are not required to know all the answers to believe in a creator.

If you are a Janitor of a huge corporation - you are required to know you have a CEO but you are not required to know everything about the CEO. Just do your job and in time you may meet the CEO.
Just don't break the rules and stop performing your basic responsibility and get fired before you have a chance to meet the CEO.

What is the right tool to determine if any God exists?.....

You don't have the mechanism or science to create that tool yet. If you keep using your head with all its limitations and deficiency - it may explode and all the nuts and bolts may fall out.
Good part is - you may have a few less nuts inside of you. Just kidding!

Imagine it was a dermatologist.

Assuming you are an Atheist, why most atheists read superficially? Someone should really look into that - maybe this is why atheists don't dive deep into anything because they get repelled off the surface! Something to wonder about!

The example was used to show the "limitations".
Read in context! You obviously missed the point. Dermatologist was not at your disposal in that analogy.

If the proof isn't available, and reasoning isn't the right tool, how were you convinced? Just guessing and way too confident in your guess?

I did my research and connected the dots and I have some personal experiences to believe the way I do.

Where did this God come from?

Read up there if you like - my response to F1fan to the same question.

An intelligent E coli on a deserted island - can use logical deductions and figure out he was created and then he can ask the same question. How far will he go in finding his proof? Your position is much better but yet not good enough to find answers to the complex questions like you are asking because the realm - you are seeking information about - is not the same as the realm you are currently residing in. Too many variables and too many unknown factors and our physical environment and our relationship with time - everything is different!

Actually, I'm not seeking proof for God because I have no need for God. However, I don't mind evaluating what someone else offers as proof.

You have no need for God?
I already told you - the kind of proof you are expecting from folks is not available right now. So learn to settle for less. You don't need to know everything about your CEO to do your job right - not when your CEO is watching to see if your evil immediate boss can manipulate you and make you work against the company. Trust is everything! And sometimes folks need to be tested!

Me, forget about it. Accept that there is no way to find out the answer. That' to me is ok. I don't have to have an answer for everything.

But you need to know! Sometimes a mole can be dangerous. Ignoring can lead to your demise!
Certain things you could do - for your self preservation! And I am not talking about the mole!

I've heard a lot of testimonies from people claiming to be messengers from God. They don't all say the same thing to the point they can't all be right. So, who do you listen to and why?

Well! Look into all the available evidences and testimonies and figure out on your own. Use an unbiased approach and with open mind. Shred off all the propagandas you hear and seek the truth.

After that if you still can't find the truth then at least you will have some sort of defense when you face the creator. But you won't be able to fool any further the way you are fooling now. The truth stands clear from falsehood! All you need to do is ...seek...seek...seek.

So, I'm an atheist not because I believe there is no God but because I'm not smart enough to know who to believe.

So, that is your defense - right there! Hope it works but it won't because you are smart enough to find the truth!

 

[BrightShadow]

What's your test for that?

What is your proof that Wi-Fi is everywhere (in your house)?
You try to connect!
A failed connection could be due to multiple reasons. Wireless Router is not always to be blamed.
Check your own mindset! Not being able to connect - could be the fault of impurities of your mind! Impurities such as your arrogance (thinking you know better), your pride that stops you from looking into any testimonies with an open mind (lack of trust for the words), your delusions (thinking you are already on the right track and don't need to look any further), your greed, lust, unwillingness to sacrifice anything even for your own salvation, lack of devotion, etc.
Check one all of the above as any of that could cause your failure to connect.

How is a universe with an invisible but omnipresent god measurably different from a universe without such a god?

One exists and the other cannot!

 

[Sargonski]

I'm human - I'm a man. A woman is part of man. Does this mean a man can give birth? No. That claim would be False. A woman can give birth, but is still of mankind. Big G God and little g god is a very similar premise (concept). We are children of the universe, birthed from the substance of which the universe consists, therefore we are also God, only we're the little ones whom the big one gave birth to.

You failed to answer any of the simple "yes/No" questions .. in relation to the various fallacies and contradictions that make up the foundation on which your belief is based . This post once again fails to give a valid definition for God .. asking nonsensical unrelated questions as a means of deflection .. "Do you walk to work or take your lunch" ? .. followed by repeating previous contradiction ?

Humans are God is the God of nothing fallacy - a deflection from the question of defining God .. putting forth a fallacy and contradiction as support for claim .. then and claiming you have made an argument but alas .. you have not.

Please define .. quantify .. distinguish -- something that helps to define your God .. by explaining the difference between Big G ..and Little G - where Little G is a human .. and Big G has powers - define those powers in some way .. come up with a definition of God that is not God of Everything .. where your answer to "how much more power than a human.. having what abilities that a human does not .. is not Everything.. its just everything .. crying out to the vast unknown as if that means something other than the nothing on which your foundation is based.

Looking for some solid ground here .. for the 10th time at least .. quantify and differentiate .. without engating in this ridiculous existentialist fallacy you can't seem to shake.

What part of the Contradiction .. do you not understand If God is all Powerful .. and Human is God .. "of the same substance" -- or --- "Homoousios" for trinity fans ---- then Human is all powerful .. Do you understand that a human is not All Powerful .. and second that the human does not need to be all powerful to be a God .. making second contradiction in this fallacious foundational circle of Bleezebub ... that is where the beliefs are based on a foundation of fallacy and contradiction.

.. let us try one by one though .. my apologies for throwing so many balls at same time .. You understand that Human is not All Powerful right? Yes/No ? and thus if God = All Powerfull .. then Human is not God .. even though human might be part of the Body of God .. OK .. K . K ? Human not God --- not having those powers by which we define a God .. Powers Brother Balth .. do you understand what is meant by Powers ? not talking about the Size of this Twin God of Everything and Nothing .. sorry they did not send you the memo that the two are linked.

but .. never mind the size of God .. it matters not because we are talking about Powers. What powers .. please list a few powers this God will have.. once again keeping in mind that "Everything" is a non- answer . as it has no measurment.

Do you understand what no measuement means ? -- and why this means "nothing" why "immeasurable" is the same as nothing .. be it immeasurably small .. or immeasurably big .. it is a case where size does not matter .. because you can not define it .. but it matters everything to the question of Power.....

Then -- once you have listed at least a few powers that a god might have but a human does not ..explain how one God might be more powerful than another based on the previous metrics provided .. as if we can not measure the difference in power between one God and another .. or that amount is undefined .. we can not say that one God is more powerful than the other .. nor would we know if these Gods were equal in power .. and so if there is no measurable difference .. or impact on humans .. these are Gods of Nothing --- The Gods of no power .. not all power .. once again demonstrating this circular black vs white false paradigm fallacy to which you are clinging on tight ... the poison lizard difficult to extract .. .. bu we press on

 

[Balthazzar]

You failed to answer any of the simple "yes/No" questions .. in relation to the various fallacies and contradictions that make up the foundation on which your belief is based . This post once again fails to give a valid definition for God .. asking nonsensical unrelated questions as a means of deflection .. "Do you walk to work or take your lunch" ? .. followed by repeating previous contradiction ?

Humans are God is the God of nothing fallacy - a deflection from the question of defining God .. putting forth a fallacy and contradiction as support for claim .. then and claiming you have made an argument but alas .. you have not.

Please define .. quantify .. distinguish -- something that helps to define your God .. by explaining the difference between Big G ..and Little G - where Little G is a human .. and Big G has powers - define those powers in some way .. come up with a definition of God that is not God of Everything .. where your answer to "how much more power than a human.. having what abilities that a human does not .. is not Everything.. its just everything .. crying out to the vast unknown as if that means something other than the nothing on which your foundation is based.

Looking for some solid ground here .. for the 10th time at least .. quantify and differentiate .. without engating in this ridiculous existentialist fallacy you can't seem to shake.

What part of the Contradiction .. do you not understand If God is all Powerful .. and Human is God .. "of the same substance" -- or --- "Homoousios" for trinity fans ---- then Human is all powerful .. Do you understand that a human is not All Powerful .. and second that the human does not need to be all powerful to be a God .. making second contradiction in this fallacious foundational circle of Bleezebub ... that is where the beliefs are based on a foundation of fallacy and contradiction.

.. let us try one by one though .. my apologies for throwing so many balls at same time .. You understand that Human is not All Powerful right? Yes/No ? and thus if God = All Powerfull .. then Human is not God .. even though human might be part of the Body of God .. OK .. K . K ? Human not God --- not having those powers by which we define a God .. Powers Brother Balth .. do you understand what is meant by Powers ? not talking about the Size of this Twin God of Everything and Nothing .. sorry they did not send you the memo that the two are linked.

but .. never mind the size of God .. it matters not because we are talking about Powers. What powers .. please list a few powers this God will have.. once again keeping in mind that "Everything" is a non- answer . as it has no measurment.

Do you understand what no measuement means ? -- and why this means "nothing" why "immeasurable" is the same as nothing .. be it immeasurably small .. or immeasurably big .. it is a case where size does not matter .. because you can not define it .. but it matters everything to the question of Power.....

Then -- once you have listed at least a few powers that a god might have but a human does not ..explain how one God might be more powerful than another based on the previous metrics provided .. as if we can not measure the difference in power between one God and another .. or that amount is undefined .. we can not say that one God is more powerful than the other .. nor would we know if these Gods were equal in power .. and so if there is no measurable difference .. or impact on humans .. these are Gods of Nothing --- The Gods of no power .. not all power .. once again demonstrating this circular black vs white false paradigm fallacy to which you are clinging on tight ... the poison lizard difficult to extract .. .. bu we press on

You are speaking about powers, as if it's the power that defines God. Maybe this is true for you. This is not true for me. You have my answer as an articulated expression, and I will leave this discussion with the following: "Everything is part of who I am." What would you suggest isn't? What is nothing? Nothing doesn't exist. That's the point I've been alluding to. The lines of reason that follow are based on how we define the term God. You have my definition. You seem to reject that definition. What is I am? That which is, not that which isn't, for everything is that I am.