Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[tumbleweed41]

By the logic of "all is out of God", then not only is love all encompassing, but so is hate, fear, apathy and despair.
Therefore
God is Fear
God is Hate
God is Apathy
God is Despair

Consequently, God is Sin.

Dont twist it. All is out of God. God is ultimately responsible for everything. God created evil. Those above are effects from evil.

Sound like verification of what I just said.

 

[Walkntune]

By the logic of "all is out of God", then not only is love all encompassing, but so is hate, fear, apathy and despair.
Therefore
God is Fear
God is Hate
God is Apathy
God is Despair

Consequently, God is Sin.

Does darkness exist or is it the absence of light?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lets look at this again

Lets just say what you put is right. You pointed out the bad ONLY and came to the conclusion God is sin. What happened to the the love part? Is that negated and the bad prevails? See how you guys try to twist things.

Just as you focused on the good only (Love).
The twisting goes both ways. It depends on the spin your taking.
Just an example of the logical fallacies contained within your theology.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Does darkness exist or is it the absence of light?

Physics =/= Emotion.

 

[AK4]

I think I may be quite lucky then as I've never been taught that death wont happen. I have been taught and believe in eternal life but not in the sense I wont die, that will happen eventually and I am in no way under the illusion that on my death I will automatically go to Heaven.

Would believe eternal life is unscriptural too? Well you have to really break it down but the concept is true ---living "forever" [even forever is unscriptural] but its really eonian life--age-abiding life because we are given immortality.

Eternal/everasting/for ever and ever are not real scriptural words and there are many unscriptural teachings that come from them. See they mix in many falsenesses with the truth and many cant even tell they are being decieved. As for eternal if you really study what that means you would see how that is totally blasphemous.

Did you know that saying Jesus will reign for ever and ever is unscriptural and wrong? So worshipping Jesus and saying He will reign for ever and ever you are actually worshipping Him wrong and not in spirit and truth. I tell ya their teachings...whew

 

[AK4]

Sound like verification of what I just said.

Hes responsible. He didnt/doesnt commit any sin. But yes all those did come out from Him

 

[Enlighten]

Would believe eternal life is unscriptural too? Well you have to really break it down but the concept is true ---living "forever" [even forever is unscriptural] but its really eonian life--age-abiding life because we are given immortality.

Eternal/everasting/for ever and ever are not real scriptural words and there are many unscriptural teachings that come from them. See they mix in many falsenesses with the truth and many cant even tell they are being decieved. As for eternal if you really study what that means you would see how that is totally blasphemous.

Did you know that saying Jesus will reign for ever and ever is unscriptural and wrong? So worshipping Jesus and saying He will reign for ever and ever you are actually worshipping Him wrong and not in spirit and truth. I tell ya their teachings...whew

No, eternal, everlasting - however you want to put it is scriptural. Do you have some other Bible that you are reading from? Honestly I'm really struggling to go with you here. Where did you get your facts regarding what is scriptural and non?

 

[Walkntune]

Physics =/= Emotion.

You assume spiritual things are a matter of emotions but you do not understand that truth and love know that emotions lie and can not be trusted or stood on.
Emotions have nothing to do with the topic of this discussion.
If you understood intuition and human instincts you would have better ground but since you believe all of reality is logical and wrought of mind the discussion is difficult and unfruitful.

 

[AK4]

Does darkness exist or is it the absence of light?

According to the scriptures He created darkness so it does exist. How about does the absence of light create darkness?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are wrong here. and everything else that follows after the red is irrelevant because your whole thought on sentient is wrong



Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

No considering that freewill is a myth [whether you believe it or not its true], where wouldnt God fit into this definition

Sure, if God exists, he would be included as a sentient entity. How does this create a problem?

Oh really? The scriptures say "ALL IS OUT OF GOD". All, that means every single iota of every single thing, thought, emotion, whatever else you can think of. Now if all is out of God and God is defined by Love, which basically means i give and He says He will give all of Him [which is supposed to be everything] to all His creation, how is His love not an all encompassing action?

1) if loving action were "all-encompassing", then all action would be loving action.
2) unloving actions exist.
3) an action cannot be simultaneously loving and unloving.
4) By (2) and (3), not all action is loving action.
5) By (1) and (4), loving action is not all-encompassing.

 

[Walkntune]

No, eternal, everlasting - however you want to put it is scriptural. Do you have some other Bible that you are reading from? Honestly I'm really struggling to go with you here. Where did you get your facts regarding what is scriptural and non?

I agree i don't know where AK4 is coming from in scripture references?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the scriptures He created darkness so it does exist. How about does the absence of light create darkness?

Darkness is defined as the absence of light.

Quantitatively, brightness is defined in terms of concentration of photons. Darkness is defined in terms of sparseness of photons. Once you have no photons (i.e. no brightness), you reach an impenetrable upper bound for "darkness": you can't get any darker than a complete absence of brightness.

 

[Walkntune]

According to the scriptures He created darkness so it does exist. How about does the absence of light create darkness?

I learned in my study of electronics that darkness is scared of the light and you can see it hiding under all of the furniture?

 

[Enlighten]

I agree i don't know where AK4 is coming from in scripture references?

LOL I thought I was alone for a minute with this one!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Darkness is defined as the absence of light.

Quantitatively, brightness is defined in terms of concentration of photons. Darkness is defined in terms of sparseness of photons. Once you have no photons (i.e. no brightness), you reach an impenetrable upper bound for "darkness": you can't get any darker than a complete absence of brightness.

Correct,
Darkness, in reality does not exist. There is only light (energy) or absence of light (no energy).
Just as cold does not exist, there is only heat (energy) or absence of heat (no energy).

However, Walkntune is attempting to equate quantifiable energy such as light with the emotional response of love.

 

[AK4]

No, eternal, everlasting - however you want to put it is scriptural. Do you have some other Bible that you are reading from? Honestly I'm really struggling to go with you here. Where did you get your facts regarding what is scriptural and non?

No one bible translation is perfect. There is a big difference between scriptural and biblical. There are many translations that doesnt follow the King James Version model. Theres Youngs Literal, the Concordant, Douay Rheims--[i think this one even preceeded the King James] and many others who ahvent twisted up the meaning of one of the most important words of scripture.

Those words are aion/aionis and olam. Study up on these words. The scriptures themselves define them and with just them alone you will see how for ever and ever/everlasting/eternal are not scriptural and how they damage the Gospel severly. If you study up on those words off of things from the internet you get arguments on both sides, but then the deciding factor should be how scripture defines it and how its used. Heres one off the top of my head, it mentions something about from everlasting to everlasting. Think about that.

If one everlasting is eternal, how can that everlasting end for another eternity to begin?


Also eternity is part of those unscriptural things. Eternity/eternal means no beginning and no end. See what i mean now.

​

 

[Walkntune]

Correct,
Darkness, in reality does not exist. There is only light (energy) or absence of light (no energy).
Just as cold does not exist, there is only heat (energy) or absence of heat (no energy).

However, Walkntune is attempting to equate quantifiable energy such as light with the emotional response of love.

The only reason emotional response has anything to do with it is because like I have explained, love is an act and not an emotion. An act produces energy and the energy has an effect which causes us to feel emotional responses.There now I have equated it with a quantifiable energy??

 

[McBell]

You guys: "We claim that the universe is eternal or self existing"

I never once made this claim.
Care to try again?

Me: "Where in the universe do we have any evidence of ANYTHING eternal to substantiate your claim?"

To my knowledge there is nothing that is eternal.
Not even your god.

You guys [with the intent to (a) divert attention away from your claim and never present that which would verify your claim]: "We dont, but you are asking for special pleading" or (b) never address it at all and try to divert attention away from where you are supposed to present that which would verify your claim: "your argument makes no sense. It is on you to prove your God exists, not mine to prove that the universe is eternal or self existing"

The onus is on the one who actually makes the claim.

Did we learn something here class? Double standard. Special pleading. Avoidance to present that which would verify your claim.

What we learned is that you are not above using the very tactics you whine so much about.

Now again the OP says

I am well aware of what the op says.
I am also aware that the OP was nothing more than the Thread Starter (TS) attempting to have everyone else do their homework.

Sound familiar?

So i reiterate. The only way to possibly prove there is no God is to prove that something in this universe is eternal/self existing/brought itself into existence.

And you your unwillingness to listen to the reasons you are wrong are all on you.
NOT on those who have tried to explain why you are wrong.

So present that which would verify your claims. If you cant it Makes it look as though your claim is nothing but your imagination.
So it goes towards your credibility

Since I have not made the claim you are trying so hard to attach to me, your attempt at diversion has ended up as an epic fail.

Care to try again?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You assume spiritual things are a matter of emotions but you do not understand that truth and love know that emotions lie and can not be trusted or stood on.

Spirituality is merely the result of emotions. Truth is not an emotion, but a statement of fact. Love is an emotion. Lies are a willful distortion of the truth.

Emotions have nothing to do with the topic of this discussion.

I believe they do.

If you understood intuition and human instincts you would have better ground but since you believe all of reality is logical and wrought of mind the discussion is difficult and unfruitful.

You assume incorrectly. Reality is the observable state of things as they actually exist. It is emotions that are formed of the mind.

 

[AK4]

Sure, if God exists, he would be included as a sentient entity. How does this create a problem?


1) if loving action were "all-encompassing", then all action would be loving action.
2) unloving actions exist.
3) an action cannot be simultaneously loving and unloving.
4) By (2) and (3), not all action is loving action.
5) By (1) and (4), loving action is not all-encompassing.

Think about it. This is important for you so you can understand how your argument fails. Love, in order to know what love is you have the contrast of it, hate, evil, unloving actions. Now God in His wisdom knew this so He GAVE us both love and hate, loving actions and unloving actions, all so we can experience and learn these things. And guess what, in order for us to be trully made in His image [actually its still a process going on, He is making man not He made man] we had to know good and evil. love and hate. And by His action of love He provided these things