How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Both, of curse

Why do you find it necessary to jinx or curse Bill?

heh heh.
No spell check on my tablet. Probably would not have noticed that one, any way

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Your definition places a restriction on God's power. An all powerful God has no more obligation to foresee your moral outcome than you are to read the last page of the whodunnit.
Do you think that you are more qualified than bill to be a Gods spokes person and if so why?

I am the least qualified, for sure. But I know a straw man when I see it.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

neologist wrote:

BillRM wrote:
All powerful mean that nothing in the universe can do a damn thing he does not allow and all knowing means that free will or no free will not one of his creatures can do a damn thing that he will not have predicted from the beginning of the universe he created.
Your definition places a restriction on God's power. An all powerful God has no more obligation to foresee your moral outcome than you are to read the last page of the whodunnit.

In fact you are wrong an all powerful God only means a God that can do what can be done...that might be a lot or not much at all depending on what can be done...

...for instance when I say "God" has no power (rather is the source of power) I mean to say God is not an active entity, God is the entirety of what is real timelessly, and thus it does not act, rather IT IS ! (the idea that you can divide what is real in creation and creator, or any other sub set partition for that matter, automatically assumes time and space as background, a before and after, a here and there, a "you" and "me"...no final set can have such characteristics, it cannot be processed/computed either, meaning such partition it is a stupid idea !)

You seem to be saying God has a personality and a nature. Why couldn't you articulate this on the thread "Define God"? BTW, your exegesis is extremely convoluted

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

But you've made it clear that such people are somewhere in the vicinity of the lowest of the low a

Top draw con men including Religious con men have no morals but do tend to be very bright indeed unlike their stupid followers........ Drunk

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

No one is here denying the excesses of the clergy. We merely point out these are not the fault of God.

Since all the gods mankind had come up with since the beginning of time are fantasies of course you can not fault them.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

often get many things wrong but it seems that you may be suggesting that a God has laws of nature that he can not overrule?

A god or gods that can not at whim over rule the laws of nature are hardly a god and at best just a superior being or beings to humans.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
No one is here denying the excesses of the clergy. We merely point out these are not the fault of God.

Since all the gods mankind had come up with since the beginning of time are fantasies of course you can not fault them.

Actually, they can be faulted, but not the creator

1 Reply

u pervert satanic people gluing **** that all nature dirt are happy to pretend speakin from ur bodies

god is not everything if by definition god concept is only what is above everything

above everything as the least fact to powers identification upon everything

and if such entity exist, what is above everything is of course above himself more easily

provin that truth exist being infinite superiority that present absolute superiority confirm individual freedom over it, so the truth being infinite superiority always

**** u and roast in most disgustin hells forever especially adapted to what u r

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
No one is here denying the excesses of the clergy. We merely point out these are not the fault of God.

Since all the gods mankind had come up with since the beginning of time are fantasies of course you can not fault them.

Actually, they can be faulted, but not the creator

Can you understand the idea that a "fault" is just pepper sauce in the food...the process of reality has no faults..faults are an illusion, a transition between two states of knowledge in space/time...any state is legitimate in its own context...meaning any state is justified, timely speaking, it happened out of "causes" not out of wrong choices...the idea of wrong is a retrospective upon an event we cannot change...but the fact that it happened out of causes suffices to put at rest the idea of kilt...blame is just an instrument for social conditioning, the product of a very evolved brain that needed to enforce cooperation...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So, do we punish criminals?

2 Replies

@neologist,

do u??? **** u soon u gonna b burried alive with ur mouth full of **** claimin being urself life forcin u to not even dare pretend speakin up

no punishments morons just truth

1 Reply

@imans,

I often wonder if you're actually quite a delightful chap Imans, and that Google translate is just screwing with you a bit

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

I often wonder if you're actually quite a delightful chap Imans, and that Google translate is just screwing with you a bit

chap urself piece of pervert loser, there is no translation as it is obivous there especially with such amount of direct replies, so stop wonderin shitty and mind ur own self translations to urself fancy of being a rat sponsored to appear intelligent

as for google there is no such thing since it is u that mention it, infinity is truth so never screwin anything while definitely u cant never know how far it hates u n ur gods

1 Reply

@neologist,

If you mean to ask do we stop criminals my answer would be absolutely..we set them aside society if they are dangerous, but punishment ? I rather think in recovering...when possible, it seams a better approach...

2 Replies

I can't help but to think you all guys love Imans awkwardness and time to time need to pull her leg just to see what comes out of the box...she, supposedly she is a she, is extremely sensible and very prone to misinterpret our intentions... just leaver her be, let her her own corner and all shall be fine. In her own way, she is trying to reach us...

3 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Just blocked him/her. I would not normally do such a thing. But I have never been able to understand anything other than his/her extreme dislike for me. With no substantive arguments to challenge or discuss.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

How would you cause such a recovery? And, for hat matter, why bother?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque, speaking of imans, wrote:

....she, supposedly she is a she, is extremely sensible...

I have serious doubts about either sensible or sensitive, the word I think, perhaps, you meant to use.

If ever someone finds a substantive statement in one of imans' posts, let me know and I'll check it out.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I rather think in recovering...when possible, it seams a better approach...

Also a hell of a lot cheaper when you are talking around 40,000 a year to keep someone behind bars.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I can't help but to think you all guys love Imans awkwardness and time to time need to pull her leg just to see what comes out of the box...she, supposedly she is a she, is extremely sensible and very prone to misinterpret our intentions... just leaver her be, let her her own corner and all shall be fine. In her own way, she is trying to reach us...

How about a little intellectual honesty at the moment?

You find him different than you and a little more incoherent at times but you have the logical ability to make sense of what he fails at but you find a need to call him/her a she because you find it to be degrading? Wink

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know