An argument for the existence of God

[lancek4]

....since then any event that would convey some sort of significance would imply such God. Which then puts such God into a category of moot. The discussion then ends because everyone is merely pointing to some significant event for them and presenting it in an effort to convince the other person of its significance. Some will find it significant, some wont. Though it may point to some ' god-like' presence, such discussions get nowhere to proving what it may actually be or what premises might be true regarding such God.

The discussion of the existance of God therefore must take another tact; such a discusssion for it to get anywhere, must begin and continue by avoiding such objective plaiting and otherwise avoid the pitfall of using the terms 'God's, unless one is speaking of mythological paradigms or cultural belief.

[chaz wyman]

....since then any event that would convey some sort of significance would imply such God. Which then puts such God into a category of moot. The discussion then ends because everyone is merely pointing to some significant event for them and presenting it in an effort to convince the other person of its significance. Some will find it significant, some wont. Though it may point to some ' god-like' presence, such discussions get nowhere to proving what it may actually be or what premises might be true regarding such God.

The discussion of the existance of God therefore must take another tact; such a discusssion for it to get anywhere, must begin and continue by avoiding such objective plaiting and otherwise avoid the pitfall of using the terms 'God's, unless one is speaking of mythological paradigms or cultural belief.

That is a very kind, patient offering.

[edited by iMod]

[attofishpi]

I feel rude if i don't respond.

I gave you '''it''' on a silver platter....
If you don't understand....
then like me, you don't comprehend matter....


http://www.androcies.com

[Felasco]

What I find interesting is how similar those arguing both for and against God are. The more adamant their stance, the more alike they become.

[chaz wyman]

What I find interesting is how similar those arguing both for and against God are. The more adamant their stance, the more alike they become.

In what way?

[Felasco]

Both believers and non-believers proceed on the assumption that they are in a position to ask the right question, and provide a useful answer to it. The more adamant the advocate, the stronger that assumption.

The question of God, whether for or against, is an assertion about the ultimate nature of all of reality. And yet, we have no idea even how big reality is.

We may have examined 85% of reality, or perhaps .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000001%. We have no idea.

All proclamations about God are of equal value.

[chaz wyman]

Both believers and non-believers proceed on the assumption that they are in a position to ask the right question, and provide a useful answer to it. The more adamant the advocate, the stronger that assumption.

The question of God, whether for or against, is an assertion about the ultimate nature of all of reality. And yet, we have no idea even how big reality is.

We may have examined 85% of reality, or perhaps .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000001%. We have no idea.

All proclamations about God are of equal value.

Is that the best you can do?
Your claim: the god question is about the nature of reality.
Prove it!
Your claim would only be valid if god is true. That is not the point. I'm not even arguing that.
As god does not represent a coherent entity, being as there are so many versions. I do not thing that the question has anything to do with the question of reality, but a question of fantasy.

Where do you get your ridiculous percentages from?

Yes, all proclamations about god are of equal value; zero.

[chaz wyman]

I feel rude if i don't respond.

I gave you '''it''' on a silver platter....
If you don't understand....
then like me, you don't comprehend matter....


http://www.androcies.com

Shit on a platter of gold or of silver is still unpalatable.

[Felasco]

Is that the best you can do?

Discussing this with you would be based upon the assumption that your view on religion is reason based, and thus editable by reason. The truth is however, that discussing religion with you is exactly like discussing religion with a Jehovah's Witness, entirely emotion based, and thus beyond all outside influences. However, as you have correctly observed, I am a damn fool, so here goes....

Your claim: the god question is about the nature of reality. Prove it!

Prove that you aren't a potatoe!!

Your claim would only be valid if god is true.

Somebody is claiming God is at the heart of all reality, you are claiming there is no God anywhere in reality. Same thing exactly, a claim about all of reality.

That is not the point. I'm not even arguing that.

That's good, because you won't get far with it.

As god does not represent a coherent entity, being as there are so many versions.

This claim is based upon the assumption that a god would have to be coherent, that is, complying with the rules of human reason. Which we might recall is a very poorly developed ability of a single species (only recently living in caves) on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, at the least.

I do not thing that the question has anything to do with the question of reality, but a question of fantasy.

Yes, this is your assertion. It's based on absolutely nothing but your own emotional need to find some group you can pretend to be superior to.

Yes, all proclamations about god are of equal value; zero.

Yes, exactly, we agree. All proclamations about god, including the assertion there is no such thing, have a value of zero.

However, that's not quite true. The competing assertions and the battle between them have proven they have entertainment value. Given all the energy invested in to this enterprise over the centuries, by both believers and non-believers, this entertainment value appears to be significant.

[chaz wyman]

Is that the best you can do?

Discussing this with you would be based upon the assumption that your view on religion is reason based, and thus editable by reason. The truth is however, that discussing religion with you is exactly like discussing religion with a Jehovah's Witness, entirely emotion based, and thus beyond all outside influences. However, as you have correctly observed, I am a damn fool, so here goes....

Obviously that is the best you can do.

Your claim: the god question is about the nature of reality. Prove it!

Prove that you aren't a potatoe!!
I don't have to, I'm not claiming to be a potato or not a potato.
Obviously you went to school in the same place as Dan Quayle.

Your claim would only be valid if god is true.

Somebody is claiming God is at the heart of all reality, you are claiming there is no God anywhere in reality. Same thing exactly, a claim about all of reality.

No, I am asking what is meant by 'god', and what is the basis of the absurd claim. I'm not making any claims myself. But YOU are making claims which are false.

That is not the point. I'm not even arguing that.

That's good, because you won't get far with it.

How so?

As god does not represent a coherent entity, being as there are so many versions.

This claim is based upon the assumption that a god would have to be coherent, that is, complying with the rules of human reason. Which we might recall is a very poorly developed ability of a single species (only recently living in caves) on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, at the least.

Your above statement is based in the assumption that you are capable of thinking. You do not seem to be.
Cave-men never existed. I've explained that to you before.
The number of stars is not related to your objection, which is meaningless, and self refuting.

I do not thing that the question has anything to do with the question of reality, but a question of fantasy.

Yes, this is your assertion. It's based on absolutely nothing but your own emotional need to find some group you can pretend to be superior to.
And what is the source of your emotional need to attack people who are smarter than you mean?

Yes, all proclamations about god are of equal value; zero.

Yes, exactly, we agree. All proclamations about god, including the assertion there is no such thing, have a value of zero.

All proclamations about the existence of fairies are zero.
Santa does not exist is without value? Is that what your feeble brain is trying to say?


However, that's not quite true. The competing assertions and the battle between them have proven they have entertainment value. Given all the energy invested in to this enterprise over the centuries, by both believers and non-believers, this entertainment value appears to be significant.

Yes, to a fool like you maybe. What did Santa bring you for Xmas??

[attofishpi]

I feel rude if i don't respond.

I gave you '''it''' on a silver platter....
If you don't understand....
then like me, you don't comprehend matter....


http://www.androcies.com

Shit on a platter of gold or of silver is still unpalatable.

Chaz, our perceptible reality has the three dimensions with the fourth being time...the fourth dimension is the tricky one that man has a hard time to comprehend. Scientists are going on paper to 11 dimensions and more to explain our reality, yet you dismiss the possibility of a 'God' and remain atheist..not even considering '''IT'''' plausible.

Why?

By not partaking in the search of ALL considerations of reality....atheism is foolish. Ergo, you are a fool.

[Felasco]

I'm not making any claims myself.

Give us a break Chaz. It's no fun to play with you if you're going to insist on making such obviously false statements, so easily refuted by your own so many posts on this topic.

[chaz wyman]

I'm not making any claims myself.

Give us a break Chaz. It's no fun to play with you if you're going to insist on making such obviously false statements, so easily refuted by your own so many posts on this topic.

Okay. You are making a serious claim. You are saying that I am making a claim.
Please tell me what that claim is!

[chaz wyman]

I feel rude if i don't respond.

I gave you '''it''' on a silver platter....
If you don't understand....
then like me, you don't comprehend matter....


http://www.androcies.com

Shit on a platter of gold or of silver is still unpalatable.

Chaz, our perceptible reality has the three dimensions with the fourth being time...the fourth dimension is the tricky one that man has a hard time to comprehend. Scientists are going on paper to 11 dimensions and more to explain our reality, yet you dismiss the possibility of a 'God' and remain atheist..not even considering '''IT'''' plausible.

Why?

By not partaking in the search of ALL considerations of reality....atheism is foolish. Ergo, you are a fool.

WHich god are you bleating on about today, fool?

[Felasco]

Okay. You are making a serious claim. You are saying that I am making a claim. Please tell me what that claim is!

I'm claiming that you must be on drugs if you think any reader of this forum is going to agree you aren't making a claim about gods and religion.

C'mon Chaz, this is silly...