How God could fail to convey His message?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Provide YOUR evidence that there is no God.

No evidence is needed to prove something does not exist.

Absolutely there is! Just because you specifically haven't interacted with something or don't believe in it doesn't mean it does not exist. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people that you've never met, but if you were to say that because of that, they don't exist, does that make them not exist? You'd need proof.

So what the fuck do you mean "god"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hey there's a stick, god exists.
Conclusions are not valid conclusions, when they illogically follow invalid premise's.

I've always found it interesting how the less intelligent posters enjoy using emoticons.

Oh yeah, well how does your words add up to god, seen any godly pictures lately, tell me, what does this ink blot represent to you?

I rest my case!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Provide YOUR evidence that there is no God.

No evidence is needed to prove something does not exist.

Absolutely there is! Just because you specifically haven't interacted with something or don't believe in it doesn't mean it does not exist.
That's correct!


I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people that you've never met, but if you were to say that because of that, they don't exist, does that make them not exist?
No, but then 1 person in 7 billion can definitely be lost in the CROWD of equally small people. Your false god is supposed to be, just one, that's larger than life, the universe for that matter, he can't get lost in the crowd, or so you say, yet I can't see him, with my eyes and mind fully open.

You'd need proof.
Yet it's even more 'incumbent,' upon one that says there's something that can't be seen, to prove it exists, yet it's impossible for you to do so! Do you really need proof there are no leprechauns, faeries, pixies, trolls, elves or Vulcans? How about a pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow? Aliens anyone? Please, tell me what you don't believe in, because you've never seen it?

[surreptitious57]

One is only required to produce evidence when one rejects a position not when one is merely skeptical of one
And therefore I do not say God does not exist but I do not think God exists. A subtle and important distinction
As the first is a truth claim that requires evidence while the second is not a truth claim that requires evidence

[Vendetta]

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people that you've never met, but if you were to say that because of that, they don't exist, does that make them not exist?
No, but then 1 person in 7 billion can definitely be lost in the CROWD of equally small people. Your false god is supposed to be, just one, that's larger than life, the universe for that matter, he can't get lost in the crowd, or so you say, yet I can't see him, with my eyes and mind fully open.

The key right there is "with my eyes and mind fully open." It seems to me as if you are doing anything you possibly can to disprove any semblance of evidence towards God. Perhaps if God did attempt to reveal himself to you, you would find some way to prove otherwise to yourself as well. If you were to, even for a second, put aside your ardent disbelief and open your mind to the possibility, I'm sure you'd get a lot closer to some sort of response.

[Vendetta]

One is only required to produce evidence when one rejects a position not when one is merely skeptical of one
And therefore I do not say God does not exist but I do not think God exists. A subtle and important distinction
As the first is a truth claim that requires evidence while the second is not a truth claim that requires evidence

The differentiation between the two is that one is words of a so called atheist, while the other is of an agnostic.

[attofishpi]

Hey there's a stick, god exists.
Conclusions are not valid conclusions, when they illogically follow invalid premise's.

I've always found it interesting how the less intelligent posters enjoy using emoticons.

Oh yeah, well how does your words add up to god, seen any godly pictures lately, tell me, what does this ink blot represent to you?

I rest my case!

It's also interesting how they get their nickers in a twist over things they don't under.stand.

[-1-]

Yeah, there are stupid people, who use emoticons, and there are smart people, who are first to point that out, but we still don't have an answer to how god had been unable to intelligently pronounce the things he wanted to say, and why he defaulted to a self-contradictory and unclear text as his message.

I am an atheist, and I believe there is no god. However, I do appreciate that the possibility exists that there is a certain number of gods.

This is not a belief, purely, but an intelligent guess, that worshipping on the basis of the bible is a hugely flawed thing.

And finally, if the bible is indeed the true source of worship, then I insist that the god that inspired it has been a not very intelligent god, not even by human standards.

Lastly: Barring that, meaning if he is really intelligent, then the literary and informative mistake we call the bible has been inspired by god to be written by incredibly untalented people.

[-1-]

One is only required to produce evidence when one rejects a position not when one is merely skeptical of one
And therefore I do not say God does not exist but I do not think God exists. A subtle and important distinction
As the first is a truth claim that requires evidence while the second is not a truth claim that requires evidence

The differentiation between the two is that one is words of a so called atheist, while the other is of an agnostic.

You may be right, Vendetta, in your assertion as to what constitutes agnosts and atheists, but the logical constructs as presented by surrepty are solid and unassailable.

To produce a proof to support one's belief is not required, either on the atheist's side or on the theist's. But a proof is required on either side if a claim is presented which is allegedly irrefutable.

[attofishpi]

Yeah, there are stupid people, who use emoticons, and there are smart people, who are first to point that out, but we still don't have an answer to how god had been unable to intelligently pronounce the things he wanted to say, and why he defaulted to a self-contradictory and unclear text as his message.

I am an atheist, and I believe there is no god. However, I do appreciate that the possibility exists that there is a certain number of gods.

This is not a belief, purely, but an intelligent guess, that worshipping on the basis of the bible is a hugely flawed thing.

And finally, if the bible is indeed the true source of worship, then I insist that the god that inspired it has been a not very intelligent god, not even by human standards.

Lastly: Barring that, meaning if he is really intelligent, then the literary and informative mistake we call the bible has been inspired by god to be written by incredibly untalented people.

Yes, but to the contrary I've known a 'God' of some sort to exist since 'it' made 'itself' fully aware to me in '97, and every year since.
The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

Therefore, I do not see that this 'God' has failed in any way.

[-1-]

The key right there is "with my eyes and mind fully open." It seems to me as if you are doing anything you possibly can to disprove any semblance of evidence towards God. Perhaps if God did attempt to reveal himself to you, you would find some way to prove otherwise to yourself as well. If you were to, even for a second, put aside your ardent disbelief and open your mind to the possibility, I'm sure you'd get a lot closer to some sort of response.

This argument angers some atheists. It is not a logical argument, but an appeal to ask your debating opponent to change his habit or lifestyle in order to see your point. This is not a philosophical argument.

Much similarly, if someone would ask you to murder your loved ones, or to throw the preacher in your community off a cliff, in order to see the truth in atheism or in Satanism or whatever, then you'd feel, rightfully so, to be a fool to try this on your own; the atheist feels the same way, that he would be a fool to change his habits only because you ask him to do so.

[-1-]

Yes, but to the contrary I've known a 'God' of some sort to exist since 'it' made 'itself' fully aware to me in '97, and every year since.
The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

Therefore, I do not see that this 'God' has failed in any way.

To be a clear, successful communicator, one has to be widely understood, his message has to be universal.

I have no problem accepting that you've been having incidents where you think you have had clear, unambiguous or, in lieu of that, rather compelling communication with your god. But it's one person whom he has reached, and many many many others he has not reached that way . Universality is missing.

Same with the bible. There are many ways it impresses some readers , but the impression in its delivered form is not universal.

Hence my post, and my insistence on treating the intended topic again, because 1. it has some merit , and 2. you actually said something with the above, but 3. you had not addressed the issue of the topic .

[attofishpi]

Yes, but to the contrary I've known a 'God' of some sort to exist since 'it' made 'itself' fully aware to me in '97, and every year since.
The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

Therefore, I do not see that this 'God' has failed in any way.

To be a clear, successful communicator, one has to be widely understood, his message has to be universal.

I have no problem accepting that you've been having incidents where you think you have had clear, unambiguous or, in lieu of that, rather compelling communication with your god. But it's one person whom he has reached, and many many many others he has not reached that way . Universality is missing.

Same with the bible. There are many ways it impresses some readers , but the impression in its delivered form is not universal.

Hence my post, and my insistence on treating the intended topic again, because 1. it has some merit , and 2. you actually said something with the above, but 3. you had not addressed the issue of the topic .

Oh dear - why WHY Y? ...the emoticons - it just makes you look like a little naive girl or SpheresofBull (which is even worse) - you do appear intelligent, apart from the emotis!

The thing is - God has left the FACT that it exists down to our own discretion - Y? DOUBT. It has become apparent to me over these years that it has simply left the ball as it were, in our court. It doesnt appear to care if one is atheist, so long as you are 'righteous'.

I think I clearly have understood 'Gods' message - it is very clear to me. 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule - treat others as you would like to be treated - something akin to that. Where is it not clear?

[-1-]

Oh dear - why WHY Y? ...the emoticons - it just makes you look like a little naive girl or SpheresofBull (which is even worse) - you do appear intelligent, apart from the emotis!

The thing is - God has left the FACT that it exists down to our own discretion - Y? DOUBT. It has become apparent to me over these years that it has simply left the ball as it were, in our court. It doesnt appear to care if one is atheist, so long as you are 'righteous'.

I think I clearly have understood 'Gods' message - it is very clear to me. 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule - treat others as you would like to be treated - something akin to that. Where is it not clear?

With all due respect, attofishpi, yours is one understanding of god's message. It is different from all other understandings that exist out there that are different.

It is universality that is missing in god's message if you consider the bible god's message.

If you say that there are some christian values that are universal, I agree. But it does not take away from the fact that there are diverse, differing christian values that are not universal.

Of a god with supernatural abilities and with intelligence that far surpasses man's, one can expect to be universal in his teaching, that is the first step in clear communication.

[attofishpi]

Oh dear - why WHY Y? ...the emoticons - it just makes you look like a little naive girl or SpheresofBull (which is even worse) - you do appear intelligent, apart from the emotis!

The thing is - God has left the FACT that it exists down to our own discretion - Y? DOUBT. It has become apparent to me over these years that it has simply left the ball as it were, in our court. It doesnt appear to care if one is atheist, so long as you are 'righteous'.

I think I clearly have understood 'Gods' message - it is very clear to me. 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule - treat others as you would like to be treated - something akin to that. Where is it not clear?

With all due respect, attofishpi, yours is one understanding of god's message. It is different from all other understandings that exist out there that are different.

It is universality that is missing in god's message if you consider the bible god's message.

If you say that there are some christian values that are universal, I agree. But it does not take away from the fact that there are diverse, differing christian values that are not universal.

Of a god with supernatural abilities and with intelligence that far surpasses man's, one can expect to be universal in his teaching, that is the first step in clear communication.

So you believe there are Christian ideologies that contradict my understanding that we should adhere to 10 commandments and believe in the words of Christ as expressed in the Gospels? Please to extrapolate on these 'other' ideologies!