For Agerg and atheists

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it's not. God is not the same as invisible pink unicorns in your fridge. And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not. Because you do not believe in God, your misunderstanding of him and of Christians is vast. But misunderstanding is not a proof of the non-existence of God, no matter how much you (and Agerg, who also claims to have proof of the non-existence of God) wish it to be so.

How is your non-existent god different from the invisible pink unicorn? You have never seen 'him' have you? That by definition makes it invisible. And you only have the word of humans as to the reality of said alleged god.

Originally posted by sonhouse
How is your non-existent god different from the invisible pink unicorn? You have never seen 'him' have you? That by definition makes it invisible. And you only have the word of humans as to the reality of said alleged god.

But we have seen His Son, who is the expressed image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). He left us His photographic negative on His burial and resurrection cloth (The Shroud of Turin).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5664213/shroud_of_turin_photographic_negative_3d_hologram_the_lamb/

Originally posted by RJHinds
But we have seen His Son, who is the expressed image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). He left us His photographic negative on His burial and resurrection cloth (The Shroud of Turin).

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5664213/shroud_of_turin_photographic_negative_3d_hologram_the_lamb/

Photographic negative?

What am I missing here? Surely everyone, including you know there was no such technology during Christs supposed death?

This has to be the worst "evidence" you've come up with like .....ever !!


Hell, you may as just say that it was videotaped but Satan wrecked the tape so the public would never know.....man

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Photographic negative?

What am I missing here? Surely everyone, including you know there was no such technology during Christs supposed death?

This has to be the worst "evidence" you've come up with like .....ever !!


Hell, you may as just say that it was videotaped but Satan wrecked the tape so the public would never know.....man

Could be. Who knows? 😏

Originally posted by kd2acz
This post was originally posted in another thread (April 1st) by Agerg.

[quote]The real April fools joke (that's been running for the last several thousand years)...

your god doesn't exist...you, your family, your friends, your ancestors, indeed probably more than half the people who have ever lived have wasted a hefty proportion of their lifetime b with all the certainty that you believe that there is no God, proving it should be easy to do?

You are definitely right to call Agerg on his B. S. The statement "God does not exist" is a positive statement, meaning the burden of proof is on him. Since no such proof will be forthcoming it is perfectly within one's rational right to call his claim what it is: B. S. He may be right or wrong, but the point is, he doesn't know whether he is or not, because he can't. Agerg may not realize this, but that's not relevant.

That said, just because Agerg can't prove that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean he doesn't have, at least in his mind, good reasons to think God doesn't exist. Likewise, you can't prove God does exist, but this doesn't mean you don't have, at least in your mind, good reasons to think God does exist.

The atheist is justified in placing the burden of proof on the theist for asking him to believe something extraordinary about the nature of reality. Atheists, contrary to popular theist opinion, aren't denying God's existence because they don't want to be subject to a Higher Power; rather, they are denying God's existence because a 'God' is simply not something among the things they believe exist. Undoubtedly, there may be certain irrational motivations underlying the anti-theist mentality, but that does not change the fact that they are perfectly within their rational rights to demand proof for theistic claims before they change their minds (if ever).

Bottom line, it really isn't worth taking such proclamations seriously. Atheists have a right to believe as they do, provided they keep it to themselves. 😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Since no such proof will be forthcoming.....

If you actually read the thread, you will see that I presented a proof.

Likewise, you can't prove God does exist,
How do you know this? What property of your definition of God makes this necessarily the case?

Bottom line, it really isn't worth taking such proclamations seriously.
Why not? I don't think you have given good argument as to why one should not take it seriously.

Atheists have a right to believe as they do, provided they keep it to themselves. 😉
I assume here that you mean we shouldn't force to you believe otherwise. If so, I generally agree.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you actually read the thread, you will see that I presented a proof.

[b]Likewise, you can't prove God does exist,
How do you know this? What property of your definition of God makes this necessarily the case?

Bottom line, it really isn't worth taking such proclamations seriously.
Why not? I don't think you have given good argu ...[text shortened]... me here that you mean we shouldn't force to you believe otherwise. If so, I generally agree.[/b]

Your proof, so-called, isn't very convincing. Why must we assume that if God exists, he must be comprehensible? The apophatic tradition within Christianity, for instance, takes it for granted that (1) God is inherently incomprehensible, due to his nature as an infinite, non-physical, and eternal being; and (2) our language, due to its metaphorical nature, cannot be but, to put it generously, inexact when applied to descriptions of said God. Given this, it is not at all surprising that the appearance of contradiction is found in the Bible with respect to God (e.g., the Trinity).

Why not? I don't think you have given good argument as to why one should not take it seriously.

I take arguments for the non-existence of God seriously, just not unequivocal declarations that God does not exist.

I assume here that you mean we shouldn't force to you believe otherwise. If so, I generally agree.

No, I meant provided you keep it to yourself. Once atheists start making claims about there being no God in public and, worse, try to convince others that it is true, at that point the atheist crosses into unethical territory. How can you justify raising your kids to be atheist, or trying to make your mailman atheist, when you yourself cannot prove that God doesn't exist? It's OK if you want to get together in your atheist conventions and do whatever it is you atheists do together, and it's OK if you want to worship no God or gods in the privacy of your own home, but it's not OK to talk about it with anyone else. The bottom line is, keep it to yourself. 😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your proof, so-called, isn't very convincing. Why must we assume that if God exists, he must be comprehensible? The apophatic tradition within Christianity, for instance, takes it for granted that (1) God is inherently incomprehensible, due to his nature as an infinite, non-physical, and eternal being; and (2) our language, due to its metaphorical nature ...[text shortened]... not[/i] OK to talk about it with anyone else. The bottom line is, keep it to yourself. 😉

But by the same token, how can you justify raising your kids to be Christian or trying to make your mailman Christian, when you yourself cannot prove that the Christian God does exist?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But by the same token, how can you justify raising your kids to be Christian or trying to make your mailman Christian, when you yourself cannot prove that the Christian God does exist?

I jest. It is completely reasonable for you to share your beliefs with anyone you wish. Likewise for theists. Even if you can't prove it. I was merely flipping the popular atheist invective against theists on its head that says theists ought to keep their crazy beliefs to themselves, etc. etc.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I jest. It is completely reasonable for you to share your beliefs with anyone you wish. Likewise for theists. Even if you can't prove it. I was merely flipping the popular atheist invective against theists on its head that says theists ought to keep their crazy beliefs to themselves, etc. etc.

I was thinking it was a rather strange stance to take. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You are definitely right to call Agerg on his B. S. The statement "God does not exist" is a positive statement, meaning the burden of proof is on him. Since no such proof will be forthcoming it is perfectly within one's rational right to call his claim what it is: B. S. He may be right or wrong, but the point is, he doesn't know whether he is or have a right to believe as they do, provided they keep it to themselves. 😉

I argue that if I am bound to the same level of proof as you are when you say that "no such proof will be forthcoming [from me]", it is perfectly reasonable on my part to affirm that "G"od does not exist. Reveal Hidden Content

There are many things we can validly say we "know" without being subject to the levels of rigour demanded of us by theists who, when all is said and done, present to us the proposition that

some comic book superhero deity (who knows and sees everything, in addition to being "perfect" and maximally benevolent) sent "his" own son (who is also "himself" apparently) to "save" us from whatever horrors a perfect, omnipotent, and maximally benevolent deity decides is most fitting for those who do things "he" doesn't like (such as not believing "he" exists).

The Bible was written 2000 years ago by humans who knew jack about how the world operates. It is contradictory, childish, fanciful, and there is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible Reveal Hidden Content that this deity exists, or any supernatural events claimed to have happened in the Bible ever took place.

On these grounds - in just the same way I know I cannot fly (this has not been proven btw), I know "G"od does not exist.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your proof, so-called, isn't very convincing.

Proof by its nature doesn't need to be convincing, it just needs to be logically sound - which my proof is.

Why must we assume that if God exists, he must be comprehensible?
I made no such assumption. I claim that an entity cannot exist that matches an inconsistent definition.

Given this, it is not at all surprising that the appearance of contradiction is found in the Bible with respect to God (e.g., the Trinity).
Whether it is surprising or not, it remains the case that the God as described in the Bible does not exist. If anything, you seem to agree with me ie you admit that the definition of God as provided by the Bible is not an accurate definition of the entity that you believe exists.

How can you justify raising your kids to be atheist, or trying to make your mailman atheist, when you yourself cannot prove that God doesn't exist?
1. I already proved that God doesn't exist.
2. I can still justify it without said proof. Atheism remains the most reasonable position as long as the preponderance of evidence suggests so. I would however teach my children and the mailman to look at the evidence and make their own judgement rather than using the theist technique of hiding the evidence and demanding that they believe regardless.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
(1) God is inherently incomprehensible, due to his nature as an infinite, non-physical, and eternal being; and

At the start of the thread, I asked for a definition of God. So, it seems your definition of God is that he is incomprehensible. I see the trick, but you can't get away with it.
1. If God is truly maximally incomprehensible, then you can say nothing whatsoever about him. So God is ......... hey I can't even call him an 'entity'. All I know is what he is not ie he is not something comprehensible.
2. If God is partially comprehensible, ie we can start making definite claims (as you did) such as he is infinite (whatever that means in this context, is that spatially infinite, infinite in time, infinitely divisible?), non-physical, eternal etc, then we can start asking if these claims are consistent. In this case I would say that being non-physical leads to the conclusion that it is eternal, or rather timeless, just as a maths equation does not have a position in space and time. Of course without knowing what you meant by infinite, it is hard to comment on that. But I would say that infinite in spatial terms is inconsistent with the claim that he is non-physical, so maybe you mean infinite like the set of integers?

So, by your definition so far, the set of Integers might be God. So, not, I don't think I can prove he doesn't exist, but I see no reason why I should be praying to the Integers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you actually read the thread, you will see that I presented a proof.

Your proof is laughable. In the extreme. If one's 'given' is false, the entire proof is rendered false.

In fact, I have proven that God cannot be proven to exist, or to not exist.

My proof, while not airtight, is vastly more sensible than your proof.



(And oh, by the way, feel free to claim that I ignored your post because I didn't reply to parts of it not pertaining to my point.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Proof by its nature doesn't need to be convincing, it just needs to be logically sound - which my proof is.

You really should go into Comedy as a career.

Again, your 'given' is false. Yes, any 'proof' DOES need to be 'convincing'. As for your proof being logically sound, well, see above.