McBell
Admiral Obvious
What post do you think challenged even one item on Pernumbra's list?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reasons for the belief in no God
- Thread starter Subby
- Start date
What post do you think challenged even one item on Pernumbra's list?
Read and conclude for yourself, piece it together, and use the laws of logic, the same laws that transcend your mind, and remain consistently independently objective. Since mans mind is inherently contradictory when compared to another mans mind, something needs to transcend mans mind, thus an author outside of nature is needed.
Your use of the laws of logic show that a mind above and transcendent of ours is being recognized.
laffy_taffy
Member
As an atheist, I do not have (lack) a belief in any god. This does not mean that I believe that there is in fact no god. How should I know? For all I know, there could be hundreds out there![FONT="]
FYI
1)[/FONT] Not believing in x is not the same as
2) Believing such and such about x
Translated as:
1) Not believing in god is not the same as
2) Believing that there is no god (that god does not exist)
I believe that if there is a god, I just have not (yet?) had any personal experience of one or have seen any convincing evidence to believe in one. Obviously, I do not hold the belief that there are no gods if I can admit that there could be a god(s) out there. I just have not been convinced to believe in one.
[FONT="]
I haven't been provided with proof one way or the other. I do not believe in any god because of the lack of sufficient evidence to convince me to believe (which makes me an atheist). Likewise, I do not believe that "there are no gods" because of the lack of sufficient evidence to convince me that there is not some deistic god out there somewhere. My not having a belief in god makes me an atheist. It doesn't matter whether I believe gods could be possible, etc, I do not currently have a belief! (BTW, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge about god, but in regards to belief.....you only have 2 choices: belief or no belief, and I have no belief).
[/FONT]
McBell
Admiral Obvious
*yawn*
I have not found a single post that challenges anything in post 79.
Not a one.
What I have found is you voraciously attacking your strawmen.
Read my posts for evidences. Creation itself testifies to a Creator that transcends nature.
Proofs are staring you in the face, and go unchallenged. Let that be noted.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Subby,
Am sure those who do not believe in God is because for them *seeing is believing* except that there is a third eye which only those with higher levels of consciousness can see; but then such seeing is only by the seer and so not verifiable by others and so those who do not believe in God is right in their own way!
Love & rgds
Am sure those who do not believe in God is because for them *seeing is believing* except that there is a third eye which only those with higher levels of consciousness can see; but then such seeing is only by the seer and so not verifiable by others and so those who do not believe in God is right in their own way!
Love & rgds
McBell
Admiral Obvious
What proofs?
Present the post that you think best challenges one of the items in post 79 and let us look at it.
Still no challenge to any of my arguments.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I refuse to entertain your strawmen.
If you have to rely so heavily on logical fallacies, then your arguments are worthless.
Can you not even find one post of yours that you feel is an actual challenge to an item in post 79?
paolops181
God rules!
The fool says in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good. (Ps.53:1)
There is no God.
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good. (Ps.53:1)
Except that atheists, in general, tend to be a pretty nice, ordinary bunch of people. We don't go doing vile things simply because we have seen no reason to believe that a God exists.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
This is so pathetic.
Remember that you are addressing people who do not believe that there is a god. The only source of authority for the bible is the belief that it came from a god. Therefore, your quoting the bible in this discussion is so absurd as to be insulting.
waitasec
Veteran Member
had we been more knowledgeable about the invisible world (micro organisms)
or what causes volcanoes to erupt, earthquakes, diseases and how small we really
are in the universe, we wouldn't need a celectrial dictatorship to worship and
tell us what to do and to explain these mysteries with just an easy answer,
"god's ways are higher than ours".
that answer alone contradicts what is innate in man kind. it goes against
our very nature to question, doubt to search out for logic and reason
based on empirical evidence.
the mere fact that we made up a deity is because we have those
qualities in us (reason and logic) but we were lacking in knowledge.
It's not a small point.
Here's my try:
1. based on how you have defined "God", it has the qualities of transcendence and perfection.
2. transcendence, as I understand it in this context, means "being above and independent of the material universe". IOW, transcendence implies truth or validity in all circumstances and cases, at all times and all places.
3. perfection is the quality of acheiving the maximal value in some standard or scale of measurement.
4. therefore, perfection is an invalid concept without a standard or scale against which to measure it.
5. since no particular scale scale of measurement can be said to be true or proper anywhere and everywhere in all circumstances, by (2), no scale of measurement is transcendent.
6. therefore, by (4), perfection is not transcendent.
7. therefore, perfection and transcendence are mutually contradictory qualities. IOW, no perfect being can be transcendent, and no transcendent being can be perfect.
8. therefore, God, having contradictory qualities, is a logical impossibility.
9. therefore, God, as you have defined him, does not exist.
Ahh, but now you have to agree on the definition of "perfection".
Edit: "A = A" is as much a statement of perfection as it is of identity, and being. "Being," in whole, itself, has no measure other than itself --without adjective, adverb, or any other associated sentence part.
Edit: "A = A" is as much a statement of perfection as it is of identity, and being. "Being," in whole, itself, has no measure other than itself --without adjective, adverb, or any other associated sentence part.
Last edited:
Well, since Subby's so fond of Merriam-Webster's...
I've colour-coded my responses based on whether, IMO, the definition works with my proof above or not:
Fits the assumptions of the proof
Not applicable - it's not the sort of perfection we're talking about here
Unsure - depends on definitions of terms within the definition
1a: "Fault" and "defect" imply a standard against which the perfect thing is judged.
1b: This one's new to me. I've never heard "maturity" equated with "perfection", except maybe in narrow cases like crops or financial investments.
1c: "Saintly" opens up a whole new kettle of fish that could take us a while to deal with, but if you want to, I can.
2a: Again, "supreme" implies some sort of scale of measurement, otherwise you can't have things be "lesser", "greater" or "supreme".
2b: Again "degree of excellence" implies a scale of measurement for excellence.
So... I'm not sure about "saintly". Most of the definitions for "saint" that I see either imply canonization by a specific church (which would imply that God wasn't perfect until deemed so by a church, which would refute the idea of transcendent perfection as well but I think is a rather silly way to approach the question) or they imply things like "eminence for piety or virtue", which get back to the whole issue of having a standard of piety or virtue against which one can be measured to be "eminent".
But is "A" transcendent?
Yeah... I think the term "being" was included for grammatical correctness so that the definition would be equivalent to the term defined. i.e. "transcendence is being above and independent of the material universe".