Proving the non-existence of Frank's god.

The rest of the participants are welcome to enter their own version of god in the "contest"; we'll see when the dust settles if any are still standing.

I'll start by recognizing Frank's incapacity to argue without insulting; that seems to be his trademark at least in this forum.

Now:

I've said that if gods really existed it wouldn't be necessary to prove this existence, which COULD be equivalent to stating that 2+2=3; yet so far nobody has made any dent to the argument! if by saying "jajajaja, what a (beep) everybody knows that 2+2=3 is wrong, jajajaja!", it is expected to prove the argument is weak I'm going to need then the "right" answer; what's 2+2 equal to then? Why the existence of a god wouldn't have to be more obvious? better yet: How can it be posible for Frank to argue this? How did his knowledge of this god came to be if he seems to admit that gods might just not be recognizable at all?

Moving on:

For a concept to be "killed" a definition of this concept is necessary. What would be the most accepted definition of god? According to dictionaries and most religions god created mankind and the universe.

Do you agree with this statement Frank?

So I don't monopolize any other definition I'll leave it up to whoever is up to the challenge to provide any others. I'm also going to need proof of the way this knowledge of god's attributes was obtained.

selfruled wrote:

The rest of the participants are welcome to enter their own version of god in the "contest"; we'll see when the dust settles if any are still standing.

I'll start by recognizing Frank's incapacity to argue without insulting; that seems to be his trademark at least in this forum.

Now:

I've said that if gods really existed it wouldn't be necessary to prove this existence, which COULD be equivalent to stating that 2+2=3; yet so far nobody has made any dent to the argument! if by saying "jajajaja, what a (beep) everybody knows that 2+2=3 is wrong, jajajaja!", it is expected to prove the argument is weak I'm going to need then the "right" answer; what's 2+2 equal to then? Why the existence of a god wouldn't have to be more obvious? better yet: How can it be posible for Frank to argue this? How did his knowledge of this god came to be if he seems to admit that gods might just not be recognizable at all?

Moving on:

For a concept to be "killed" a definition of this concept is necessary. What would be the most accepted definition of god? According to dictionaries and most religions god created mankind and the universe.

Do you agree with this statement Frank?

So I don't monopolize any other definition I'll leave it up to whoever is up to the challenge to provide any others. I'm also going to need proof of the way this knowledge of god's attributes was obtained.

What you have done so far, Selfrule...is to be an arrogant ass who has come up with some of the most absurd pap...and have tried to pass it off as excellence in debating.

You are not an especially good debater...and most of your themes are second-hand and trite.

If you want to go back to your other thread and continue that discussion there...I will be glad to show you that you are making a fool of yourself.

As for here...

...as I have already explained to you...

...I have no god for you to be dealing with.

Are you retarded...or just terminally careless.

selfruled wrote:

The rest of the participants are welcome to enter their own version of god in the "contest"; we'll see when the dust settles if any are still standing.

I'll start by recognizing Frank's incapacity to argue without insulting; that seems to be his trademark at least in this forum.

Now:

I've said that if gods really existed it wouldn't be necessary to prove this existence, which COULD be equivalent to stating that 2+2=3; yet so far nobody has made any dent to the argument! if by saying "jajajaja, what a (beep) everybody knows that 2+2=3 is wrong, jajajaja!", it is expected to prove the argument is weak I'm going to need then the "right" answer; what's 2+2 equal to then? Why the existence of a god wouldn't have to be more obvious? better yet: How can it be posible for Frank to argue this? How did his knowledge of this god came to be if he seems to admit that gods might just not be recognizable at all?

Moving on:

For a concept to be "killed" a definition of this concept is necessary. What would be the most accepted definition of god? According to dictionaries and most religions god created mankind and the universe.

Do you agree with this statement Frank?

So I don't monopolize any other definition I'll leave it up to whoever is up to the challenge to provide any others. I'm also going to need proof of the way this knowledge of god's attributes was obtained.

What you have done so far, Selfrule...is to be an arrogant ass who has come up with some of the most absurd pap...and have tried to pass it off as excellence in debating.

You are not an especially good debater...and most of your themes are second-hand and trite.

If you want to go back to your other thread and continue that discussion there...I will be glad to show you that you are making a fool of yourself.

As for here...

...as I have already explained to you...

...I have no god for you to be dealing with.

Are you retarded...or just terminally careless.

. . . In other words, arguments about deities which assume "objectivity" are entirely futile. All we can do is argue whether such a concept is useful or not, . . .

Well; however sophisticated Frank's arguments may be; to me it only proves that the guy must walk the streets carrying a revolver loaded with silver bullets just in case he is attacked by a werewolf, garlic and a crucifix just in case a vampire flies by; and just to be on the safe side he writes a letter to santa every christmas...

Unless he is able to explain why he is willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to one, and only one especific fairy tale.

Could God make a pizza pocket so hot that he himself could not eat it?

b/c i mean really those thing cane get pretty dang hot.

selfruled

I can categorically tell you you will get no change out of Frank on this one.

To start with, the wording of your question makes the same assumptions that Frank makes about "existence" and "proof" i.e. that of "naive realism" in which objective entities impinge on one of our five senses either directly or indirectly....these impingements being the result of "properties" which are said to be "possessed" by the entity. Frank argues (correctly) that since nobody will define such properties, then nobody "knows" how to "prove or disprove" whether gods are "real" (="exist").

The problem with all this is that it alludes to scientific procedure without the slightest appreciation of what scientists actually do or think about "existence". Firstly "objectivity" becomes meaningless when concepts like "electrons" or "quarks" cannot be observed directly by observers, and indeed can vary their "properties" according to the observation methods employed. (Heisenberg) Secondly such concepts remain "hypothetical entities" not "real" and their status is one of "explanatory utility" rather than "fact". There is no "proof" of the "existence" of these entities yet there is a mathematical and logical framework within which such entities play key roles. Our confidence in using them comes with the "control" the concepts give in the subsequent manipulation of what we call "reality".

Now if the term "hypothetical entity" is applied to "God" then most of the above paragraph can be applied as a "substantiation of God's existence".
All we need to do is tweak a few parameters like, forget the "mathematical framework" and substitute "social framework"....extend "control" to "God's ultimate control" of " a reality
which embraces this world and the next" ...etc.

In other words, arguments about deities which assume "objectivity" are entirely futile. All we can do is argue whether such a concept is useful or not, and unfortunately many still find that it is.

If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise.

selfruled wrote:

Well; however sophisticated Frank's arguments may be; to me it only proves that the guy must walk the streets carrying a revolver loaded with silver bullets just in case he is attacked by a werewolf, garlic and a crucifix just in case a vampire flies by; and just to be on the safe side he writes a letter to santa every christmas...

Unless he is able to explain why he is willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to one, and only one especific fairy tale.

Talk about somebody believing in fairy tales

Firstly "objectivity" becomes meaningless when concepts like "electrons" or "quarks" cannot be observed directly by observers, and indeed can vary their "properties" according to the observation methods employed.

Well, we all know that YOU are not pretending.