A Simple Start

[Nakosis]

A god is anything or anyone who is attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it, so the statement that there are no god(s) is false. Correct?

Sure, I suppose what I don't believe in is a God defined as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.

 

[paarsurrey]

the human form of Jesus died, not the god-side.

G-d doesn't need to have a human form. Why should he be, please?
Regards

 

[syo]

G-d doesn't need to have a human form. Why should he be, please?
Regards

god did us a favor and took human form.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have done that you. Now why aren't you obedient and thankful for me showing you what to do?

The way you are "helping me" shows your contempt for me and for all of us Christians "who believe blindly", to paraphrase your statement. I'm still waiting to see love--love which is the evidence that someone has a relationship with Jesus and not merely some "god". I've had Luciferians and atheists on this forum speak more kindly to me this week!

 

[Jumi]

The way you are "helping me" shows your contempt for me and for all of us Christians "who believe blindly", to paraphrase your statement.

Before you try to fake being the victim, you do realize that YOU were the one who called my belief blind to begin with and you compared me to a drug user. Are you contemptuous of us monotheists?

I only reciprocated in kind to your dismissive and insulting behavior. Actually I have nothing against Christians specifically. Frankly, if this was your first time insulting me for no reason, I'd just ignore it.

 

[Jumi]

I'm still waiting to see love--love which is the evidence that someone has a relationship with Jesus and not merely some "god".

I'm also waiting to see it from you.

I've had Luciferians and atheists on this forum speak more kindly to me this week!

Likewise.

 

[Earthling]

Sure, I suppose what I don't believe in is a God defined as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.

Such as? Because there isn't very strong evidence that the writers of the Bible presented Jehovah as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient to the degree that modern theology may present him.

 

[Earthling]

syo said: ↑
I mean all gods are immortal and that is why they are greater than us.


It is correct.
Regards

No it isn't. Jesus wasn't Immortal. He died. Moses wasn't immortal. Tammuz, and all the Sumerian Kings of his time, weren't even deified until after their death. You are confusing Jehovah as being the definition of a god by applying the generic term God to him excursively. The gods of Shintosim are spirits, often of dead ancestors. They certainly are not immortal.

 

[Earthling]

"God isn't a name, it's a title". Unquote

Yes, God is a title. Jehovah and Allah are His names in different languages.

Regards

No. I disagree with that to a certain extent. Jehovah is a name, it means "He causes to become." Allah is a word, it means "the God." I've read carefully a few translations of the Qur'an and I've never seen the name Jehovah mentioned. It's pretty clear that The Qur'an was a sort of inaccurate offshoot of the Bible, and the God they refer to may be one in the same, as you suggest, namely, Jehovah, but that isn't expressly defined in any substantial way in the Qur'an. In other words, they don't mention it. In that respect I disagree with you, though, only because the Qur'an and Muslims, as far as I know, don't use that name or any form of it. I wouldn't consider Allah a form of the name.

 

[Earthling]

Sorry, I disagree with one here.
G-d existed even if the eye to behold Him was in the making or was not yet evolved.

Regards

Excellent point, but it only proves my own point. I don't know why people use the stylized "G-d," it seems silly to me, but Jehovah or any so called creator Gods existed before anyone else, so how could they have been Gods then? Gods to whom? Again, you are confusing a title for a name and applying it to a specific God exclusively.

That a creator god existed before every other god doesn't negate the other gods from qualifying as gods. You don't have to have created a universe to be a god, nor achieve any level of greatness beyond what those deifying you would attribute.

 

[Earthling]

Worship is to inculcate attributes of G-d in one's self.

Regards

OK, that's your interpretation, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Earthling]

I suggest an amendment:
To be more specific being Almighty is one of the attributes of G-d among many, the Mightiest than the human imagination.

Regards

Well . . . that's your opinion and that's fine, but again, you confuse this "G-d" with all gods and that's just misleading.

 

[Earthling]

Just like all other religious people you believe your god / your version of god / whatever, is the only true belief / version / whatever.

In essence you / your beliefs are no different than anyone else's. There need be no confusion about that.

It isn't about religious belief, it's about language.

 

[Earthling]

Yeah, we heard that before. Do us all a favour,
and stay gone, this time?

Oh, I'd love to, Audie, but . . . then you said it.

 

[Earthling]

I never said it didn’t, only that the statement doesn’t support your conclusion. You might even prove your conclusion by some other means but the OP alone is not logically valid.

Yes it is. Religiously it might not be valid, but logically it most certainly is.

Do you mean conceptually or are you claiming billions of deity’s actually literally exist? Assuming you mean the former and someone making the statement “No gods exist” could clearly man the latter, the statement isn’t automatically false (though nor can be proven definitely true – it’s be an expression of opinion or belief).

By the extension of this new line of logic, literally no statement of the form “X doesn’t exist” could ever be true because the statement creates the concept of whatever X is itself. That’d be ridiculous.

First of all, a god doesn't have to exist to be a god. Secondly, if you say a specific god, such as Tammuz, didn't exist you would be historically wrong, thirdly, it's true that the literal existence of some gods is a matter of faith, but that doesn't apply to all gods. If you make the statement that there are no gods, that implies that no one ever worshiped a being that was considered mighty or venerated. Shiva is a god. It doesn't matter whether or not Shiva existed, he is still a god. On the other hand, if what you are implying is that you don't think Shiva existed at all that's another story. However, even if you make the statement that no gods existed applying to all gods, there are many who literally existed. Eric Clapton is the example I use. Kim Jong Un is another one. You can't place the qualification of a god to be supernatural or omniscient etc. and come to the conclusion that there isn't any gods because those aren't qualification for being a god.

 

[Nakosis]

Such as? Because there isn't very strong evidence that the writers of the Bible presented Jehovah as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient to the degree that modern theology may present him.

Sure, he started off as a local tribal God.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes it is. Religiously it might not be valid, but logically it most certainly is.

Your logic is flawed because it makes an unsupported assertion where an assumption should go (saying “A god is…” rather than “If a god is…”) and it wrongly implies that a word can only have a single meaning, regardless of intent or context.

First of all, a god doesn't have to exist to be a god.

That’s just dishonest spin. Do you truly believe anyone who has said “Gods don’t exist” were claiming the concept of gods doesn’t exist? Obviously the concepts exist but the denial is that the concepts reflect real beings as people describe and believe they do. By that argument, you couldn’t ever say anything doesn’t exist!

However, even if you make the statement that no gods existed applying to all gods, there are many who literally existed. Eric Clapton is the example I use.

So if I say “Eric Clapton is a vampire”, “Eric Clapton is an even prime number” and “Eric Clapton is cure for cancer”, anyone statement that those things don’t exist, made at any time and in any context, is automatically false? What is I say “Eric Clapton is a true statement that gods don’t exist”?

You can't place the qualification of a god to be supernatural or omniscient etc. and come to the conclusion that there isn't any gods because those aren't qualification for being a god.

I can in context. If I say “No supernatural or omniscient god actually exists in the universe” then that’s exactly what I mean. I might use lazy or unspecific language and only actually say “No gods exist” but actually mean the more specific longer statement. You can call the statement unclear or misleading but you can’t simple state I’m wrong based on a misunderstanding of my meaning, especially if it should be clear from context and common-usage.

 

[Earthling]

Your logic is flawed because it makes an unsupported assertion where an assumption should go (saying “A god is…” rather than “If a god is…”) and it wrongly implies that a word can only have a single meaning, regardless of intent or context.

You're arguing this from an atheist perspective and it's warping your ability to consider facts. You are the one limiting the word to having a single meaning. You think a god has to be God or is just an imitation of the God.

That’s just dishonest spin. Do you truly believe anyone who has said “Gods don’t exist” were claiming the concept of gods doesn’t exist?

No, not at all.

Obviously the concepts exist but the denial is that the concepts reflect real beings as people describe and believe they do. By that argument, you couldn’t ever say anything doesn’t exist!

Nonsense. Gods can be anything, including anyone or anything that does or doesn't exist. You are arguing that a God has to be supernatural creator of the universe and that's nonsense.

So if I say “Eric Clapton is a vampire”, “Eric Clapton is an even prime number” and “Eric Clapton is cure for cancer”, anyone statement that those things don’t exist, made at any time and in any context, is automatically false? What is I say “Eric Clapton is a true statement that gods don’t exist”?

Nonsense. Eric Clapton isn't a prime number, isn't a cure for cancer, is a god and does exist. Therefore at least one god exists. The statement that there are no gods is nonsensical.

I can in context. If I say “No supernatural or omniscient god actually exists in the universe” then that’s exactly what I mean.

And that's perfectly fine. A complete and accurate opinion. But to say a god has to be supernatural or omniscient is false. To so there are no gods is false. To say "To me, there are no gods" is fine.

I might use lazy or unspecific language and only actually say “No gods exist” but actually mean the more specific longer statement. You can call the statement unclear or misleading but you can’t simple state I’m wrong based on a misunderstanding of my meaning, especially if it should be clear from context and common-usage.

Which it wouldn't be or else you wouldn't be wrong. You can say that "No gods exist" and mean that there are no unicorns in Tanzania, but that would be true but pointless and misleading. When you say "No gods exist" that means you are saying that no one no where at any time has ever said that a thing or person, whether existing or not, was ever venerated or attributed a might greater than his / her own and that is false. By definition and common use.

The most common use of the word God may specifically refer to a single God but that doesn't negate the existence, including the actual physical existence, of many other gods and goddesses. But that is what you are suggesting. Insisting upon, in fact, out of ignorance of not only the modern day common usage, but the historical usage as presented in the Bible, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Shintoism, and countless other religious and political paradigms of the last 6,000 years.

 

[Earthling]

Sure, he started off as a local tribal God.

When he presented himself to the person representing the beginning of that tribe he said he would be their God. He wasn't the God of the other tribes and countries surrounding them. He wasn't a God to that representative prior to that. He wasn't a God to anyone before anyone existed. He became a God, that is someone mighty and venerated to the tribes at some point.

 

[Earthling]

god did us a favor and took human form.

No. Jehovah never took human form. Jesus had taken human form and then became a god. As a human he was a mighty god (Isaiah 9:6) and as a spirit being, or angel if you please, he was also a god, because the Bible calls angels gods. (“sons of God” (KJ) elohim Psalms 8:5 / Hebrews 2:6-8)