You realize that Yahweh is only the Jewish god right? That name is not applicable to Christianity or Islam.
Anyways, theres a difference between Faeries and Supreme Beings. Faeries are simply mythological creatures, whereas, divine beings have the same evidence that the big bang does. As I posted earlier in the thread, science creates a paradox in that we cannot exist if the rules of relativist physics holds true. God/Gods/etc lie outside of the universe and therefore do not require an origin. I can pull up my post again if you would like.
Yahweh is another name for the monotheistic god of the Aberhamic tradition, from which humanity in the middle east concocted Judeism, then Christianity, and later Islam. They are related and they do (on a good day) claim to be worshiping the same god.
There is no diffirence at all between fairies and gods. The theology of any religion is just as much a mythology as any story about faries. Just because you assert that this god concept can be so enormously strange as to exist outside our reality does not make it evidential. It's just another myth until it has been backed up by evidence. The big-bang is no more evidence for god than the universe itself. Those are assumptions that simply beg the question of what happened "before," the big-bang and supply no answers at all.
The concept of god does not get a pass on all things rational just because you want to define it that way. Some scientists theorize that quantum mechanics DOES allow matter and energy to spring into existence, absent any "cause." Does this disprove the existence of a god? Certainly not. But, does it evidence the eixstence of god? No.
As far as we know, we are adrift in a universe with absolutely no "cause," no purpose, and probably no way to even find out if there were such things in the first place (or if there was any sense to assuming a "first," anything. The universe could be sphereical and cyclical). I know for a good many human beings this is a frightening prospect, but try to understand my point of view: Just because we wish it, just because it would be nice, doesn't make it so. If I am to accept any notion of god, especially one that wishes to impress upon me a certain lifestyle, then I want evidence to prove that notion of god. Until then, I maintain that I see no explanatory evidence for any such god and will live my life according to secular principle, not divine.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Yahweh is another name for the monotheistic god of the Aberhamic tradition, from which humanity in the middle east concocted Judeism, then Christianity, and later Islam. They are related and they do (on a good day) claim to be worshiping the same god.
There is no diffirence at all between fairies and gods. The theology of any religion is just as much a mythology as any story about faries. Just because you assert that this god concept can be so enormously strange as to exist outside our reality does not make it evidential. It's just another myth until it has been backed up by evidence.
The big-bang is no more evidence for god than the universe itself. Those are assumptions that simply beg the question of what happened "before," the big-bang and supply no answers at all.
There is a substantial difference between the Jewish/Christian and Islamic God. If you read the Torah/ the bible / and Quran you will see that the personality of all 3 are different... and even the fact that the christian god specifically does not have a name. Proletaria ... I don't mean to ask this in a demeaning way... just a curious one. Have you ever taken a world religions class?
There is substantial difference between religion and mythology. First and formost, religion contains mythology but is NOT mythology. Mythology is a story, wheras, religion is theology which is often based on a story.
No Sir, the big bang has no more evidence than does the existence of god. Do yourself a favor and research string theory... modern theoretical physicists no longer even believe the bang was a bang... but rather a sudden colesence of the universe as 2 or more dimensional membranes collided.
It exists... just not in the way we understand. Time being dimensional is something our brains cannot wrap themselves around. Every infintely small fraction of a second is simply a point along this dimension, and as we exist we are traveling this dimension. Its part of the reason why time slows down the faster you go.
There is no diffirence at all between fairies and gods. The theology of any religion is just as much a mythology as any story about faries. Just because you assert that this god concept can be so enormously strange as to exist outside our reality does not make it evidential. It's just another myth until it has been backed up by evidence.
The Torah is, literally, the old testamanet of the Christian tradition. The old testament is re-affirmed by the new testament. The Qur'an mentions both books in it's own texts. Please do some fact checking before you make such an enormous error. Diffirences in their ontological concept of god are minimal at best. Christianity is the largest outlier with it's trinity concept, but christians have maintained that doesn't make them polytheistic and I have to take them at their word on that. The god being described in all three mythological texts is the same character/individual, I assure you.
No Sir, the big bang has no more evidence than does the existence of god. Do yourself a favor and research string theory... modern theoretical physicists no longer even believe the bang was a bang... but rather a sudden colesence of the universe as 2 or more dimensional membranes collided.
What about string theory proves or disproves god? If you are an expert on that subject, feel free to enlighten me. Regardless of what kick-started the current epoch that we understand our universe to be in, we cannot use that transformation from non-habitable universe state to habitable universe state as an evidence to the fact that a god must exist. It is a non-sense argument that, again, just begs the question of cause.
No offense, but this is honestly the textbook example of a plea to ignorance.
------
As Carl Sagan once said, if we are to ask the question "what happened before the origin of the universe as we understand it?" and we assert that "god," created it then we must ask "where did god come from?" If that is to be considered a rediculous question: why not skip a step and assume that asking the pre-origin of the universe is a rediculous question? If we are to assume god always existed, why then should be not skip a step and simply assume the universe always existed in some form or fasion?
The word, the concept, the notion of "god" does nothing to advance these arguments, so why is it necessary to put it there, now that we do not need it to describe physical phenomena (for which it was invented)?
The Torah is, literally, the old testamanet of the Christian tradition. The old testament is re-affirmed by the new testament. The Qur'an mentions both books in it's own texts. Please do some fact checking before you make such an enormous error. Diffirences in their ontological concept of god are minimal at best. Christianity is the largest outlier with it's trinity concept, but christians have maintained that doesn't make them polytheistic and I have to take them at their word on that. The god being described in all three mythological texts is the same character/individual, I assure you.
Some fact checking... again I ask you. Have you ever taken a world religions course? Christianity, Islam and Judiasm are all related... but they are NOT the same. You obviously do not know what the fuck you are talking about by claiming that the old testament is "quite literally" the torah.
Come on proletaria ... where is your typical athiest bashing about claiming how man has tweaked/ picked and chose the books of the bible? Apparently you didn't know that... so you aren't as educated as you claim to be.
What about string theory proves or disproves god? If you are an expert on that subject, feel free to enlighten me. Regardless of what kick-started the current epoch that we understand our universe to be in, we cannot use that transformation from non-habitable universe state to habitable universe state as an evidence to the fact that a god must exist. It is a non-sense argument that, again, just begs the question of cause.
Why do you keep ignoring post above. I directly confronted this... but you do not reply.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet hehe.... But anyways here is my own view on how to prove my God(s) exists... hope i can get a point across.
I interpret my own universe (i.e. through my senses, interacting with others and the environment), just as i assume everyone else interprets their own. If i didn't do this, my universe would not exist. Therefore I am god of my own universe just as you are all the gods of your own. I believe I exist, because if I didn't, then nothing else would exist either.
Now , just because I am God of my universe does NOT mean I am in complete control of it. This can also be applied to any major deity from any religion. I see everything that goes on in my universe; if something were to exist outside of my universe of perceptions, it really doesn't exist then. If there was a 'higher power/intelligence/god' that created everything (which is only possible because I allow the idea of it into being - more evidence that I am my own god), it also does not control what it has created. I believe there are other gods as well, imaginary or real doesn't matter its only a concept either way, but they are not me so they are not my god(s).
So, I know that I exist within my universe, and I am god, and the fact that you are reading this means you believe I exist in some form or another in your universe as well. I am god and I exist, and you can't prove I don't exist without proving your own nonexistence as well. But like you said, its not anyone's job - atheist or otherwise - to prove non-existence here.
Some fact checking... again I ask you. Have you ever taken a world religions course? Christianity, Islam and Judiasm are all related... but they are NOT the same. You obviously do not know what the fuck you are talking about by claiming that the old testament is "quite literally" the torah.
Did I say they were identical in theology? No. But their god is the same fictional character in each book and their modern theologians confirm this. What are you even trying to dispute?
Come on proletaria ... where is your typical athiest bashing about claiming how man has tweaked/ picked and chose the books of the bible? Apparently you didn't know that... so you aren't as educated as you claim to be.
I'm not taking the typical approach, and I haven't seen fit to discuss the contents of any religious mythologies yet, but i'm delighted to debate the particulars if that's what you want? Unfortunately we haven't even come to any evidence that a nebulous god exists, so we certainly cannot talk about why a christian god exists.
To use the dimensional example to explain god, if 2D beings existed, they would not be able to understand or conceptualize a 3D being, as their brain only thinks in 2D. Our human brains think in what I call 3.5D as we can only truely conceptualize time as moving foward. Our human brains cannot conceptualize anything beyond this, and this is why so many people try to say that God requires an origin as well.
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
Surprised no one has mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet hehe.... But anyways here is my own view on how to prove my God(s) exists... hope i can get a point across.
I interpret my own universe (i.e. through my senses, interacting with others and the environment), just as i assume everyone else interprets their own. If i didn't do this, my universe would not exist. Therefore I am god of my own universe just as you are all the gods of your own. I believe I exist, because if I didn't, then nothing else would exist either.
Now , just because I am God of my universe does NOT mean I am in complete control of it. This can also be applied to any major deity from any religion. I see everything that goes on in my universe; if something were to exist outside of my universe of perceptions, it really doesn't exist then. If there was a 'higher power/intelligence/god' that created everything (which is only possible because I allow the idea of it into being - more evidence that I am my own god), it also does not control what it has created. I believe there are other gods as well, imaginary or real doesn't matter its only a concept either way, but they are not me so they are not my god(s).
So, I know that I exist within my universe, and I am god, and the fact that you are reading this means you believe I exist in some form or another in your universe as well. I am god and I exist, and you can't prove I don't exist without proving your own nonexistence as well. But like you said, its not anyone's job - atheist or otherwise - to prove non-existence here.
Someone did mentioned the flying spaghetti monster back on like page 6 lol.
To use the dimensional example to explain god, if 2D beings existed, they would not be able to understand or conceptualize a 3D being, as their brain only thinks in 2D. Our human brains think in what I call 3.5D as we can only truely conceptualize time as moving foward. Our human brains cannot conceptualize anything beyond this, and this is why so many people try to say that God requires an origin as well.
God does not require an origin... Science does. In my initial post I mentioned that science is stuck in a self contained paradox. For the rules of relativistic science to hold true, then the universe itself must be contained within this rules. If these rules do hold true (without a god), we should not exist at all as there is no way for the origin to occur. ---> Matter cannot be created without energy. Energy cannot be created... simply change forms. <------
Begging the quesiton of cause.
Read the end of the other post I made:
As Carl Sagan once said, if we are to ask the question "what happened before the origin of the universe as we understand it?" and we assert that "god," created it then we must ask "where did god come from?" If that is to be considered a rediculous question: why not skip a step and assume that asking the pre-origin of the universe is a rediculous question? If we are to assume god always existed, why then should be not skip a step and simply assume the universe always existed in some form or fasion?
The word, the concept, the notion of "god" does nothing to advance these arguments, so why is it necessary to put it there, now that we do not need it to describe physical phenomena (for which it was invented)?
If you are going to say "god doesn't need those things," in order to explain the universe, then the universe necessarily doesnt need god either. You're making a useless argument.
You won't know until you are dead. So stop wasting your time. If you are judged it will be by your actions and not the amount of worshiping you have done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Traitors! Even in death, the armies of Khanduras will still obey their king!"
God can always have existed because he does not have to abide by the laws of the universe. As I said earlier... the universe needs to abide by its own rules and creates a paradox.
Carl Sagan contradicted himself. Being a leading theoretical physicist ... he should understand that the universe needs to abide by its own laws... or those laws themselves are invalid and all that you hold true is false.
As is atheism. How can you believe in nothing... when nothing would be considered a higher power? If you believe in science... that too is your higher power and therefore your god.
As is atheism. How can you believe in nothing... when nothing would be considered a higher power? If you believe in science... that too is your higher power and therefore your god.
What is the point in assuming something without evidence? Are you assuming that we need to do so in order to live? Because that's obviously a fallacy.
As is atheism. How can you believe in nothing... when nothing would be considered a higher power? If you believe in science... that too is your higher power and therefore your god.
What is the point in assuming something without evidence? Are you assuming that we need to do so in order to live? Because that's obviously a fallacy.
And no, science is not evidence for god. Sorry.
What is the point in refuting something without evidence? You have never seen me in person.. heard my voice... or even seen a picture of me... yet you know I exist based on the traces I've left behind.
What is the point in refuting something without evidence? You have never seen me in person.. heard my voice... or even seen a picture of me... yet you know I exist based on the traces I've left behind.
Since you aren't presenting me any useable evidence for your god, i'm not refuting your god. All I am doing is pointing out that your evidence is invalid, and explaining why that is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yahweh is another name for the monotheistic god of the Aberhamic tradition, from which humanity in the middle east concocted Judeism, then Christianity, and later Islam. They are related and they do (on a good day) claim to be worshiping the same god.
There is no diffirence at all between fairies and gods. The theology of any religion is just as much a mythology as any story about faries. Just because you assert that this god concept can be so enormously strange as to exist outside our reality does not make it evidential. It's just another myth until it has been backed up by evidence. The big-bang is no more evidence for god than the universe itself. Those are assumptions that simply beg the question of what happened "before," the big-bang and supply no answers at all.
The concept of god does not get a pass on all things rational just because you want to define it that way. Some scientists theorize that quantum mechanics DOES allow matter and energy to spring into existence, absent any "cause." Does this disprove the existence of a god? Certainly not. But, does it evidence the eixstence of god? No.
As far as we know, we are adrift in a universe with absolutely no "cause," no purpose, and probably no way to even find out if there were such things in the first place (or if there was any sense to assuming a "first," anything. The universe could be sphereical and cyclical). I know for a good many human beings this is a frightening prospect, but try to understand my point of view: Just because we wish it, just because it would be nice, doesn't make it so. If I am to accept any notion of god, especially one that wishes to impress upon me a certain lifestyle, then I want evidence to prove that notion of god. Until then, I maintain that I see no explanatory evidence for any such god and will live my life according to secular principle, not divine.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
There is a substantial difference between the Jewish/Christian and Islamic God. If you read the Torah/ the bible / and Quran you will see that the personality of all 3 are different... and even the fact that the christian god specifically does not have a name. Proletaria ... I don't mean to ask this in a demeaning way... just a curious one. Have you ever taken a world religions class?
There is substantial difference between religion and mythology. First and formost, religion contains mythology but is NOT mythology. Mythology is a story, wheras, religion is theology which is often based on a story.
No Sir, the big bang has no more evidence than does the existence of god. Do yourself a favor and research string theory... modern theoretical physicists no longer even believe the bang was a bang... but rather a sudden colesence of the universe as 2 or more dimensional membranes collided.
It exists... just not in the way we understand. Time being dimensional is something our brains cannot wrap themselves around. Every infintely small fraction of a second is simply a point along this dimension, and as we exist we are traveling this dimension. Its part of the reason why time slows down the faster you go.
The Torah is, literally, the old testamanet of the Christian tradition. The old testament is re-affirmed by the new testament. The Qur'an mentions both books in it's own texts. Please do some fact checking before you make such an enormous error. Diffirences in their ontological concept of god are minimal at best. Christianity is the largest outlier with it's trinity concept, but christians have maintained that doesn't make them polytheistic and I have to take them at their word on that. The god being described in all three mythological texts is the same character/individual, I assure you.
What about string theory proves or disproves god? If you are an expert on that subject, feel free to enlighten me. Regardless of what kick-started the current epoch that we understand our universe to be in, we cannot use that transformation from non-habitable universe state to habitable universe state as an evidence to the fact that a god must exist. It is a non-sense argument that, again, just begs the question of cause.
No offense, but this is honestly the textbook example of a plea to ignorance.
------
As Carl Sagan once said, if we are to ask the question "what happened before the origin of the universe as we understand it?" and we assert that "god," created it then we must ask "where did god come from?" If that is to be considered a rediculous question: why not skip a step and assume that asking the pre-origin of the universe is a rediculous question? If we are to assume god always existed, why then should be not skip a step and simply assume the universe always existed in some form or fasion?
The word, the concept, the notion of "god" does nothing to advance these arguments, so why is it necessary to put it there, now that we do not need it to describe physical phenomena (for which it was invented)?
Some fact checking... again I ask you. Have you ever taken a world religions course? Christianity, Islam and Judiasm are all related... but they are NOT the same. You obviously do not know what the fuck you are talking about by claiming that the old testament is "quite literally" the torah.
Come on proletaria ... where is your typical athiest bashing about claiming how man has tweaked/ picked and chose the books of the bible? Apparently you didn't know that... so you aren't as educated as you claim to be.
Why do you keep ignoring post above. I directly confronted this... but you do not reply.
I interpret my own universe (i.e. through my senses, interacting with others and the environment), just as i assume everyone else interprets their own. If i didn't do this, my universe would not exist. Therefore I am god of my own universe just as you are all the gods of your own. I believe I exist, because if I didn't, then nothing else would exist either.
Now , just because I am God of my universe does NOT mean I am in complete control of it. This can also be applied to any major deity from any religion. I see everything that goes on in my universe; if something were to exist outside of my universe of perceptions, it really doesn't exist then. If there was a 'higher power/intelligence/god' that created everything (which is only possible because I allow the idea of it into being - more evidence that I am my own god), it also does not control what it has created. I believe there are other gods as well, imaginary or real doesn't matter its only a concept either way, but they are not me so they are not my god(s).
So, I know that I exist within my universe, and I am god, and the fact that you are reading this means you believe I exist in some form or another in your universe as well. I am god and I exist, and you can't prove I don't exist without proving your own nonexistence as well. But like you said, its not anyone's job - atheist or otherwise - to prove non-existence here.
Did I say they were identical in theology? No. But their god is the same fictional character in each book and their modern theologians confirm this. What are you even trying to dispute?
I'm not taking the typical approach, and I haven't seen fit to discuss the contents of any religious mythologies yet, but i'm delighted to debate the particulars if that's what you want? Unfortunately we haven't even come to any evidence that a nebulous god exists, so we certainly cannot talk about why a christian god exists.
I've answered you point for point. I invite you to do the same.
Reposted... yet again for Proletaria.
Someone did mentioned the flying spaghetti monster back on like page 6 lol.
Plea to ignorance.
Begging the quesiton of cause.
Read the end of the other post I made:
If you are going to say "god doesn't need those things," in order to explain the universe, then the universe necessarily doesnt need god either. You're making a useless argument.
Carl Sagan contradicted himself. Being a leading theoretical physicist ... he should understand that the universe needs to abide by its own laws... or those laws themselves are invalid and all that you hold true is false.
I don't have to prove anything. You do.
Theological evidence is an oxymoron and as I said, I don't believe anything. You hold beliefs, I ask for evidence.
As is atheism. How can you believe in nothing... when nothing would be considered a higher power? If you believe in science... that too is your higher power and therefore your god.
What is the point in assuming something without evidence? Are you assuming that we need to do so in order to live? Because that's obviously a fallacy.
And no, science is not evidence for god. Sorry.
What is the point in refuting something without evidence? You have never seen me in person.. heard my voice... or even seen a picture of me... yet you know I exist based on the traces I've left behind.
Since you aren't presenting me any useable evidence for your god, i'm not refuting your god. All I am doing is pointing out that your evidence is invalid, and explaining why that is.