Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Caleb
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:03 am

Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Caleb » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am

Hello - I found this site by searching for a verifiable source for the so-called Riddle of Epicurus.

I did indeed find a mathematical / logical attempt at a solution to the conundrum in your forum.

I found the original argument and follow up comments to be at best amusing and at worst a complete waste of brainpower.

I would simply add an extension to the riddle.

If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Christopher Hitchens.

Sorry if I am preaching to the converted, which I probably am, but Hi anyway and hope to take part in more amusing arguments in future.
(I have to say sorry because I am British, a cultural Christian but eventually, a very happy atheist.)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:06 am

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
Hello - I found this site by searching for a verifiable source for the so-called Riddle of Epicurus.

I did indeed find a mathematical / logical attempt at a solution to the conundrum in your forum.

I found the original argument and follow up comments to be at best amusing and at worst a complete waste of brainpower.

I would simply add an extension to the riddle.

If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Christopher Hitchens.

Sorry if I am preaching to the converted, which I probably am, but Hi anyway and hope to take part in more amusing arguments in future.
(I have to say sorry because I am British, a cultural Christian but eventually, a very happy atheist.)
I like riddles, humor me with it as I am unfamiliar.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:25 pm

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Christopher Hitchens.
The Christian and Muslim faiths very much depend on impressing the followers with the rewards or punishment in the afterlife. Experience has shown that the holy books are not good at all as predictors, in the real world, therefore the little door in the back, so to speak, which has been incorporated into the scriptures, is very useful to retain or to acquire followers.

The little door, of course, is the promise that upon acceptance and following of the faith one shall reap rewards later, at a time and in a place that defy observation, detection or evidencing.

THAT is the purpose of a god that evidently does not respond or act on behalf, or against the behalf, of his followers, no matter what.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:06 am
I like riddles, humor me with it as I am unfamiliar.
What are you waiting for? The comprehension... the comprehension...

The riddle had been uttered clearly for you to see and read, before you asked for it.

"If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not {interfere with our lives}, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?"

JohnDoe7, why don't you write a mathematical treatise, describing this very riddle, using symbols nobody on this site understands, and then I am sure the light will come to you.

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:16 pm

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?
The fact that none of us would even exist were it not for God (the alleged Creator of this universe), is hardly something that can be characterized as having no point or affect on our lives.
Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Christopher Hitchens.
Oh dear, not the dreaded “hitchslap.” :P
_______

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:24 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:16 pm

The fact that none of us would even exist were it not for God (the alleged Creator of this universe), is hardly something that can be characterized as having no point or affect on our lives.
Creation and interference are two separate concepts, in fact, one can happen without the other, but the other can't happen without the one.

You created a Strawman fallacy, Sees. The OP was not whining about creation. He was whining why the one and only true god can't get off his butt and do anything.

Well, it must be what Nietzsche stated: god had committed suicide. I mean, had he had a choice?

We don't need a god any more. We don't need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the church pew. Preacher, leave the flock alone.

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:52 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:24 am
Creation and interference are two separate concepts, in fact, one can happen without the other, but the other can't happen without the one.
Which one can happen without the other?
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:24 am
You created a Strawman fallacy, Sees. The OP was not whining about creation. He was whining why the one and only true god can't get off his butt and do anything.
What the OP implied (or at least what I inferred in its reference to the Epicurean riddle) is that there doesn’t seem to be any point in the existence of a God that doesn’t come around like some kind of cosmic nanny to change our nappies for us whenever we make a mess of ourselves.

However, to me, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the very means through-which we came into being has no point in existing.

In which case, I was merely pointing out an obvious flaw in the OP’s reasoning (or perhaps just its wording).

Now if someone wants to argue about why God...

(a Being who is alleged to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent)

...doesn’t, as you say, “get off his butt” and do more to eliminate evil on earth, then that’s more to what I believe the OP is really getting at.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:24 am
We don't need a god any more. We don't need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the church pew. Preacher, leave the flock alone.
Okay Gilmour, how 'bout you avoid metaphysics and just stick to music. :D
_______

gaffo
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by gaffo » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:11 am

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
Hello - I found this site by searching for a verifiable source for the so-called Riddle of Epicurus.

I did indeed find a mathematical / logical attempt at a solution to the conundrum in your forum.

I found the original argument and follow up comments to be at best amusing and at worst a complete waste of brainpower.

I would simply add an extension to the riddle.

If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Christopher Hitchens.

Sorry if I am preaching to the converted, which I probably am, but Hi anyway and hope to take part in more amusing arguments in future.
(I have to say sorry because I am British, a cultural Christian but eventually, a very happy atheist.)
HI Caleb, welcome I found this place last month.

I like the Brits (I'm American myself) - sad you missed my YT channel. had all TV series(seasons) of Callan/Gidion's Way/Human Jungle.......for the 6 months the Authorities allowed to remain for watching in fully coryriech violaton of 50 yr old shows nearly all folks today know nothing about nor ever heard of.................now a removed channel along with my user name and acount on Youtube.

Daily Motion is where my channel will move to once if figure out to make a channel over ther without the damn site locking up on me and shting itself (those French servers such so much....................compared to the Google corporate friendly greased servers over at the YouTube virginia headquarters.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:52 am

"However, to me, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the very means through-which we came into being has no point in existing."

I don't know if you are extrapolating too much. The complaint was clear and unencumbered: God has no role in our lives, hasn't been interfering at all. So what's the point of his existing.

You say his point in existing is having created us and the world.

Well, that was then and this is now. That's what he did and he stopped there. So there is no more action, no more interaction. We do without him, what's the point of having him / believing in him / worshipping him if there is nothing he can, will, or want to do for us or to us?

If you have a worker in the company you own, and he helped you establish the company, or firm, and then he sits back and does nothing forever afterward, but collect a paycheck, then wouldn't you want to get rid of that employee?

Same thing is the complaint of the OP. Except it's not so much a question of NEEDING god to do any work, we are getting along just fine without him. It is a question of WHAT'S THE POINT.

This I don't know why you can't see. Creation was then. That served its purposed, and it had a point. But there are no new points, no current points, and as an old point, creation is done, finished, over with -- no point to god because beyond creation he does nothing else.

To me it is a clear path of thinking. I am thinking, and I feel I am right, that to you it is unacceptable to talk badly about god. SO NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL AN ARGUMENT IS, IF IT TALKS BADLY ABOUT GOD, YOU WILL WANT TO DEFLATE THAT ARGUMENT, and if you can't do it logically, then you'll follow the example of the other fanatic religious on this site, and you'll do it by ill logic, by not understanding it via a serious breach of cognitive function due to an impossible rationalization of a true cognitive dissonance, or else by saying stupid, irrelevant things as is the wont of Immanuel Can on this site.

I am happy to see that you are not on I.C.'s level yet, you are still clinging to reality and logic, but in this case your faith trumped your logic.

If that's the case, and I strongly suspect it is, then you should not have read this thread, for it does not speak to you. In fact, it's dangerous; if you keep doing this, you may stay this way after a while of doing this. If you allow this, then your children will be next.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:30 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:06 am
I like riddles, humor me with it as I am unfamiliar.
What are you waiting for? The comprehension... the comprehension...

The riddle had been uttered clearly for you to see and read, before you asked for it.

"If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not {interfere with our lives}, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?"

If God has no effect on our lives, then why does everyone argue over his nature?

If God ignores us, how do we know we are being ignored unless he paid attention at some previous point? If that is the case, then it implies existence.

If God does not exist, and we are angry with something that does not exist, are we angry with ourselves?



We can observe through science and philosophy, that observation itself effects what is observed. Observation, can be equivocated to measurement which in turn both forms and effects reality. It is in the observation of ourselves, that the question of God comes into existence as measurement seems to be a universal constant within the human experience as a form of mediation. We observe dimensions, physical and abstract, and in turn these dimensions acts as medians for other dimensions. It is this act of mediation through measurement, as a universal constant that observes God as everpresent, for measurement gives God existence through the act of observing him.

To say a spaghetti monster does not exist, is to actualize the spaghetti monster, at minimum as a phenomenon of the mind. This thought in turn affects physical reality, as habits may change causing a corresponding effect to the environment. The environment in turn affects the thought and a symmetry is observed between the two causing a further actualization of the percieved reality. Then what you have is a group of atheist sitting around a coffee table, or online, talking about God the whole time.

Atheism, created God not religious belief as it is a continual intellectual process of negation that requires to invent new definitions of God. God will always being around as long as Atheism exist, because Atheism keeps actualizing him through redefinition as a form of measurement. In these respects, God is equated to a greater measurer, as measurement becomes the continual constant and what we understanding of God is a continual process of measurement in opposition to nothingness.






JohnDoe7, why don't you write a mathematical treatise, describing this very riddle, using symbols nobody on this site understands, and then I am sure the light will come to you.

I think you understand me just fine, all I am pointing out is that you don't understand anything and we both seem to agree on that.

seeds
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by seeds » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:24 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:52 am
I don't know if you are extrapolating too much. The complaint was clear and unencumbered: God has no role in our lives, hasn't been interfering at all. So what's the point of his existing.

You say his point in existing is having created us and the world.

Well, that was then and this is now. That's what he did and he stopped there. So there is no more action, no more interaction. We do without him, what's the point of having him / believing in him / worshipping him if there is nothing he can, will, or want to do for us or to us?
I am fully aware of the fact (and hopefully, you are too) that anything that either of us have to say on these matters is based on speculation.

That being said, it becomes extremely tedious for me to have to explain my theory to every person that comes along to challenge certain aspects of it that they don’t agree with (or more accurately, simply don’t understand).

For one thing, -1-, if we are functioning at a level of being and consciousness relative to God that is comparable to that of an amoeba’s level of being relative to us, then it is quite possible that we wouldn’t have the slightest clue whether he is involved (interfering) in our lives or not.

Therefore, from that possible perspective, the very premise of the OP is rendered null and void.

And that's the perspective upon which my comments have been based.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:52 am
...NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL AN ARGUMENT IS, IF IT TALKS BADLY ABOUT GOD, YOU WILL WANT TO DEFLATE THAT ARGUMENT, and if you can't do it logically, then you'll follow the example of the other fanatic religious on this site, and you'll do it by ill logic, by not understanding it via a serious breach of cognitive function due to an impossible rationalization of a true cognitive dissonance, or else by saying stupid, irrelevant things...
First of all, you have already proven to me that you are not interested in “logic” by insisting (in an alternate thread) that there would be absolutely no affect on atheists or atheism if God were to literally reveal himself to humanity.

That, in itself, is so brazenly absurd that it irrevocably disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously in your criticisms of anyone else’s use of logic.

And secondly, I will say to you the exact same thing I say to all hardcore atheists/materialists, and that is you are “sleepwalking” through life.

The dream-like “illusion” of objective reality has you completely under its thrall.

You are oblivious of the fact that the more heartfelt and passionate you are in articulating your belief in materialism, you are in turn demonstrating – in direct proportion – the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

So by all means, -1-, instead of engaging in the pursuit of trying to unravel the mystery of reality by leaving nothing (reasonable) off the table, carry-on with your low-conscious insults and prove me right.
_______

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:30 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:06 am
I like riddles, humor me with it as I am unfamiliar.
What are you waiting for? The comprehension... the comprehension...

The riddle had been uttered clearly for you to see and read, before you asked for it.

"If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not {interfere with our lives}, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?"

If God has no effect on our lives, then why does everyone argue over his nature?

To convince those who still believe in him that he does not exist. The argument arises from the notion that some mistakenly believe in god.

If God ignores us, how do we know we are being ignored unless he paid attention at some previous point? If that is the case, then it implies existence.

The existence is presupposed. You were right in this. We start the argument with "given that a god exists, it ignores us." We don't make a claim that god exists; we make a claim that IF he exists, THEN he ignores us.

If God does not exist, and we are angry with something that does not exist, are we angry with ourselves?

WE are not angry with god. He does not exist. We argue with those who believe in god, and that creates a lot of anger on both sides. Please don't make the mistake of making this a god-centered discussion. It's not about god; it's about believers who doggonedly defend god, despite no evidence is available for its existence.

We can observe through science and philosophy, that observation itself effects what is observed. Observation, can be equivocated to measurement which in turn both forms and effects reality. It is in the observation of ourselves, that the question of God comes into existence as measurement seems to be a universal constant within the human experience as a form of mediation. We observe dimensions, physical and abstract, and in turn these dimensions acts as medians for other dimensions. It is this act of mediation through measurement, as a universal constant that observes God as everpresent, for measurement gives God existence through the act of observing him.

To say a spaghetti monster does not exist, is to actualize the spaghetti monster, at minimum as a phenomenon of the mind. This thought in turn affects physical reality, as habits may change causing a corresponding effect to the environment. The environment in turn affects the thought and a symmetry is observed between the two causing a further actualization of the percieved reality. Then what you have is a group of atheist sitting around a coffee table, or online, talking about God the whole time.

Atheism, created God not religious belief as it is a continual intellectual process of negation that requires to invent new definitions of God. God will always being around as long as Atheism exist, because Atheism keeps actualizing him through redefinition as a form of measurement. In these respects, God is equated to a greater measurer, as measurement becomes the continual constant and what we understanding of God is a continual process of measurement in opposition to nothingness.






JohnDoe7, why don't you write a mathematical treatise, describing this very riddle, using symbols nobody on this site understands, and then I am sure the light will come to you.

I think you understand me just fine, all I am pointing out is that you don't understand anything then how can I understand you? You are contradicting yourself even in the span of one sentence. and we both seem to agree on that. I don't agree on that at all. I don't know where you got that idea at all. You are being delusional here, because I am talking about your dandy, your god, in disfavourable terms, which you can't abide by. Then, when you have no counter-arguments to present by logic, but you feel you must, then you apply delusion. Typical for the believers on this website. I won't be fighting against your delusions, my friend. You should give up your deluding yourself. It's hard on everyone, including yourself. Instead, pray that a thousand angels with swords will appear in a moment's notice, to strike me down. That is your ticket, my friend, not calling me non-understanding and insisting that I have agreed to that.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by -1- » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:52 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:24 pm

Seeds, my answers to you are bolded and italicized.

For one thing, -1-, if we are functioning at a level of being and consciousness relative to God that is comparable to that of an amoeba’s level of being relative to us, then it is quite possible that we wouldn’t have the slightest clue whether he is involved (interfering) in our lives or not.

This is well-reasoned. But it does not sway me from thinking god is imaginary. Whether we don't see how a (real) god influences us, or else we don't see how an (imaginary) god can't influence us, is equivalent in our perspective. You believe the first part; I believe the second part; both are valid as beliefs and opinions.

Therefore, from that possible perspective, the very premise of the OP is rendered null and void.

And that's the perspective upon which my comments have been based.
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:52 am
...NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL AN ARGUMENT IS, IF IT TALKS BADLY ABOUT GOD, YOU WILL WANT TO DEFLATE THAT ARGUMENT, and if you can't do it logically, then you'll follow the example of the other fanatic religious on this site, and you'll do it by ill logic, by not understanding it via a serious breach of cognitive function due to an impossible rationalization of a true cognitive dissonance, or else by saying stupid, irrelevant things...
First of all, you have already proven to me that you are not interested in “logic” by insisting (in an alternate thread) that there would be absolutely no affect on atheists or atheism if God were to literally reveal himself to humanity.

I would like proof of that. Please refer me to the thread, because I am quite sure I did not say anything like that. I may have said it does not affect the belief of today's atheist in his belief tomorrow if god reveals himself tomorrow, because if he does, then god's existence is no longer belief, but knowledge. I stand by that. But you are twisting my words (possibly). Please refer us to the original statement.

Therefore I refute your argument that I am not interested in logic.


That, in itself, is so brazenly absurd that it irrevocably disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously in your criticisms of anyone else’s use of logic.

And secondly, I will say to you the exact same thing I say to all hardcore atheists/materialists, and that is you are “sleepwalking” through life.
This sleepwalking metaphor is mere opinion, and you have all the right to hold it, but it is not an argument.

The dream-like “illusion” of objective reality has you completely under its thrall.

You are oblivious of the fact that the more heartfelt and passionate you are in articulating your belief in materialism, you are in turn demonstrating – in direct proportion – the depth and degree of your somnambulism.

So by all means, -1-, instead of engaging in the pursuit of trying to unravel the mystery of reality by leaving nothing (reasonable) off the table, carry-on with your low-conscious insults and prove me right.

Hahaha.
_______

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Greta » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:01 am

Caleb wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:24 am
Hello - I found this site by searching for a verifiable source for the so-called Riddle of Epicurus.

I did indeed find a mathematical / logical attempt at a solution to the conundrum in your forum.

I found the original argument and follow up comments to be at best amusing and at worst a complete waste of brainpower.

I would simply add an extension to the riddle.

If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?
It depends on how "God/a god" is defined. In Seeds's case, the interventionist God is replaced by the pantheist "essence God". His handle is "Seeds" for a reason, always keen to highlight the fundamental patterns from which things emerge. He posits as "God" the very sense of being in much the same way as theoretical physicists work backwards to the posited beginning of the universe and come up with a seemingly mythical entity, the singularity, the seed.

So both physicists and pantheists like Seeds simply work backwards until they reach an infinity. For a pantheist essentialist, prayer would involve, not a plea to someone-out-there but to something-in-here - the "infinity" (?). Basically it is an inner conversation to tap into one's own wisdom, but unencumbered by the self-doubt associated with our own identity.

Some define this part of us "God" - our good bits :). So, it doesn't matter how small the gaps get, the God of the gaps can always be inserted into ever smaller crevices of probability and logic (see above in Seeds's humans-as-microbes post). Note that, as this happens, God appears ever more natural and realistic, as opposed to the eternal cosmic Santa conception.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello & the "riddle" of Epicurus

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:30 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 pm


What are you waiting for? The comprehension... the comprehension...

The riddle had been uttered clearly for you to see and read, before you asked for it.

"If god will not, cannot and quite plainly does not {interfere with our lives}, what is the point in a god who quite plainly has no effect on our lives?"

If God has no effect on our lives, then why does everyone argue over his nature?

To convince those who still believe in him that he does not exist. The argument arises from the notion that some mistakenly believe in god.
Mistakenly believe? What is not belief? But regardless, what is the proof that it is a mistake.

If God ignores us, how do we know we are being ignored unless he paid attention at some previous point? If that is the case, then it implies existence.

The existence is presupposed. You were right in this. We start the argument with "given that a god exists, it ignores us." We don't make a claim that god exists; we make a claim that IF he exists, THEN he ignores us.

Well, the claim was not if he exists. The claim was "if he will not..etc.". Regardless' if he exists, and he ignores us, how would we know he is ignoring us unless he was not ignoring us as some previous point. The point is that if God exists and he is ignoring us, in order for us to know he was ignoring us we would need to relate it to a time when he wasn't.

And what do you meaning by ignoring exactly?


If God does not exist, and we are angry with something that does not exist, are we angry with ourselves?

WE are not angry with god. He does not exist. We argue with those who believe in god, and that creates a lot of anger on both sides. Please don't make the mistake of making this a god-centered discussion. It's not about god; it's about believers who doggonedly defend god, despite no evidence is available for its existence.

Their is not evidence that atheism works either and to be quite frank it is not like you are in the minority. Their were plenty of atheist states, communist and otherwise, who caused their fair share of problems.

But what is the evidence exactly? Existence? Logic? I mean what are the standards of proof require to prove his existence? You cannot say their is no proof about God, then continually defining what he is not ad-infinitum. The argument is never complete, and God, by default must exist.


We can observe through science and philosophy, that observation itself effects what is observed. Observation, can be equivocated to measurement which in turn both forms and effects reality. It is in the observation of ourselves, that the question of God comes into existence as measurement seems to be a universal constant within the human experience as a form of mediation. We observe dimensions, physical and abstract, and in turn these dimensions acts as medians for other dimensions. It is this act of mediation through measurement, as a universal constant that observes God as everpresent, for measurement gives God existence through the act of observing him.

To say a spaghetti monster does not exist, is to actualize the spaghetti monster, at minimum as a phenomenon of the mind. This thought in turn affects physical reality, as habits may change causing a corresponding effect to the environment. The environment in turn affects the thought and a symmetry is observed between the two causing a further actualization of the percieved reality. Then what you have is a group of atheist sitting around a coffee table, or online, talking about God the whole time.

Atheism, created God not religious belief as it is a continual intellectual process of negation that requires to invent new definitions of God. God will always being around as long as Atheism exist, because Atheism keeps actualizing him through redefinition as a form of measurement. In these respects, God is equated to a greater measurer, as measurement becomes the continual constant and what we understanding of God is a continual process of measurement in opposition to nothingness.


I find it too convenient for how rational atheists claim to be, they shut up when a logical proof goes against their argument. I don't like Christians, but atheists are the worse of the two hypocrites.





JohnDoe7, why don't you write a mathematical treatise, describing this very riddle, using symbols nobody on this site understands, and then I am sure the light will come to you.

I think you understand me just fine, all I am pointing out is that you don't understand anything then how can I understand you?
"JohnDoe7, why don't you write a mathematical treatise, describing this very riddle, using symbols nobody on this site understands, and then I am sure the light will come to you."

Everything was spell out just fine in english in regards to the mathematical arguments, you claim not to understand, I merely agree with you.



You are contradicting yourself even in the span of one sentence.
and we both seem to agree on that. I don't agree on that at all.
Yes you do, otherwise you would not be responding.



I don't know where you got that idea at all. You are being delusional here, because I am talking about your dandy, your god, in disfavourable terms, which you can't abide by.
Haha, and who is my God?

Then, when you have no counter-arguments to present by logic, but you feel you must, then you apply delusion.
I applied a whole set of counter argument you conviently ignored. The problem with you hypocrite atheists is you ignore arguments that go over your head, misquote the one that don't, and then claim their is no proof when you do not even agree what proof even is....it is all subjective relativistic non-sense.
Typical for the believers on this website.
Okay, you don't hate God, why is it you hate believers then? Am I a believer?

I won't be fighting against your delusions, my friend. You should give up your deluding yourself. It's hard on everyone, including yourself.
No you have this wrong, its easy and fun. I will tell you why, all you do is actualize the realities you claim don't exist. You claim I am a fool, but deep down you cannot stop responding. Its almost as if I am your god.
Instead, pray that a thousand angels with swords will appear in a moment's notice, to strike me down. That is your ticket, my friend, not calling me non-understanding and insisting that I have agreed to that.

Haha, what angels am I talking about? Is that what you do, lump everything into a category? Prove to me you are better than this and do not respond. However if you do not respond, which you have not to the majority of the argument, then I am right. Pick one of the two, I want to see what you know more than everyone else.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests