god does not exist

@neologist,

please there is no need for trash talk in a serious discussion

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs-yWMuBNr4
stephen hawking briefly explains the big bang

2 Replies

@anonymous304,

Quote:

the reasons and explanations that science has provided

Multiple parallel universes, dimensions intersecting for the first time, the Big Bang creating itself, yeah, its doing real well for replacing religion with a belief in the Science-God .

0 Replies

@anonymous304,

And "floating man" is not trash talk?

0 Replies

@anonymous304,

Okay...but how do you know there are no gods?

0 Replies

@anonymous304,

could you explain it for me anon, it has been said before that I am not very bright.

0 Replies

I see the invisible hand has been making the rounds
I threw a few mercy thumbs; but is this not childish?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Its probably my fault, I have a few demented stalkers, and sometimes they tumd down everything, perhaps in the believe I will get blamed for it . It doesnt matter anyway, it cant be seen by non-members . Just ignore them .

0 Replies

@anonymous304,

anonymous304 wrote:

god does not exist. and the pure belief of god with no reasonable evidence to support and claiming that god is real based only on faith is the notion of the fool so if anyone will try to prove god is real to me i will gladly prove you wrong.

Actually it goes without really needing to say that you really can't prove a god doesn't exist. But at the same time you can't prove gremlins or flying pink unicorns don't either.

There could be a god but we have no way of validating it's existence. There is nothing that tangibly can be connected with a god to make a determination. Despite many religious people will claim that you can but their examples are weak at best.

If a god exists outside the universe then there is no way of verifying it's existence. Not even if it can impact our universe in some supernatural way because we have never been able to verify that supernatural stuff even happens. Sure there are thousands of claims but NONE of them have ever been honestly credited. Almost all of them end up being debunked or proven to be fake. With so many fakes how can you even take the claims serious?

A god could exist but even all the claims of it's traits could be wrong, completely wrong. It could be completely unconcerned with it's creation, if it even created anything. It could be a god that didn't create the universe but instead just has laid claim to it. What I am getting at is the religious will often make up the traits that they WANT their god to have because there is no way to verify them. It just comes down to what they would prefer.

0 Replies

The futility of "the existence argument" is compounded by the fact that for many atheists the hypothetical entity "God" never has existed and never will exist. because like all concepts, the very concept of "existence" per se is always related to human needs. If the need is absent, so is such an entity. Obviously social and psychological forces establish and reinforce some needs and it is lack of acknowledgement of that which results in ridiculous vacuous discussions involving "logic" or "proof" with respect to deism.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The futility of "the existence argument" is compounded by the fact that for many atheists the hypothetical entity "God" never has existed and never will exist. because like all concepts, the very concept of "existence" per se is always related to human needs. If the need is absent, so is such an entity. Obviously social and psychological forces establish and reinforce some needs and it is lack of acknowledgement of that which results in ridiculous vacuous discussions involving "logic" or "proof" with respect to deism.

Any atheist...or non-atheist, for that matter, who asserts (as you do) that "humans" and "their needs" are that important to the REALITY of existence, Fresco...

...bears as big a burden of proof for that assertion as a person who asserts that the God of Abraham is the center of the REALITY of existence.

To me, it is incredible that someone thinks humans and their needs are that important in the general scheme of REALITY...

...would have the audacity to consider him/herself to be a philosopher.

Not saying they are absolutely wrong...but to offer it as THE WAY THINGS ARE...rather than one possible way out of many ways that MAY BE THE WAY THINGS ARE...is a joke.

Not pickin' on anyone. I love everyone. Just sayin' that the so-called philosophers who are that shallow...and the people who buy that snake oil...really should find some other thing to call themselves.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Total drivel Frank. Never mind the "ethical wherewithal", you obviously don't have the epistemological wherewithal to understand that CONCEPTS reside in the minds of HUMANS. You "logical equity" argument is a feeble parochial attempt at rationalization of your own brush with the priesthood. If you had been born in Tokyo you might have been discussing the "divinity of the Emperor" instead.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Total drivel Frank. Never mind the "ethical wherewithal", you obviously don't have the epistemological wherewithal to understand that CONCEPTS reside in the minds of HUMANS. You "logical equity" argument is a feeble parochial attempt at rationalization of your own brush with the priesthood. If you had been born in Tokyo you might have been discussing the "divinity of the Emperor" instead.

It's okay, Fresco...you can think humans are the alpha and omega of the universe if you want. I suppose it makes your life more bearable to suppose you are part of a species that determines REALITY.

Please do not mind if my reaction to that is...

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Wake up !
Haven't you worked out that even " the universe" is a human concept, the functional details of which are subject to constant revision?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Wake up !
Haven't you worked out that even " the universe" is a human concept, the functional details of which are subject to constant revision?

Right!

Because the humans you so frequently use in your appeals to authority say all that is so.

In your world, humans control REALITY.

0 Replies

@fresco,

They try to predict and control their futures. "Reality" is the word some people give to aspects of the concept of "successful control", especially with respect to its limits.
So what would an ex-Shinto priest have to say about the "divinity of the Emperor ? Would he wittering that the Emperor might be divine or he might not so that he can "love everybody" like Frank ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Scientists of previous ages were not able to get away from their supposition that planet Earth was the center of everything. That liability screwed up their ability to deal realistically with the cosmos.

Philosophers of today want to suppose humans and the human mind it at the center of everything…and that those things are the primary structure mechanism for REALITY. That liability seems to be screwing up their ability to deal realistically with whatever IS.

Sad.

They ought to grow up.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Who writes your scripts Frank, Homer Simpson ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Nothing wrong with my comments, Fresco. And on the present issue...they are pretty much on the button.

Be careful. Pompous people like you ought not get into pissing contests. They seldom do very well...and often come away with most of their veneer tarnished.

Like I said...if you want to think humans and their minds are the end-all of REALITY...do so. There were people at one time who were sure the Earth was the center of the universe...so you will not be setting a bad precedent...merely furthering a lousy one.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Philosophers of today want to suppose humans and the human mind it at the center of everything…and that those things are the primary structure mechanism for REALITY. That liability seems to be screwing up their ability to deal realistically with whatever IS.

What a nerve! You talk about "philosophers of today" as though you have actually read any of them !
What they are actually saying is that every word that comes out of your mouth (like "reality", "cosmos" and "is") takes its meaning from human communicative exchanges with respect to mutual projects. Pragmaticists go further and reject any philosophical claims to "epistemological authority" on the part of philosophers, and that whatever we currently call "the state of knowledge" resides in those particular sets of shifting social and operational paradigm we call collectively "science".

1 Reply

god does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know