The non-existence of Gods

mikkel_the_dane · Sep 25, 2020

Quintessence said:
It's hard to describe. The best way I can think of to put it is that they are individual characters in the world I exist in. They have their own distinct natures or identities, their own ways of life or existing, their own dynamic cycles of becoming (births) and unbecoming (deaths), their own connections with others, their own distinct natures that change as they interact with other characters. I guess it's a way of understanding identity and relationships? A feeling of sorts? It is hard to put to words. We have largely lost good ways of talking about it so I struggle to articulate it.

Any connection and interaction between two things is a relationship - they do not require "consciousness" for either party. Perhaps a good way to describe animism is to point out the animist does not believe in one-sided relationships?

I don't think agency is that important here, nor do I see myself as a sole arbiter. Relationships just happen by virtue of things existing in the same time and space as each other (and beyond - all things in the universe are interconnected and interrelated). The relationships (or interactions, if one prefers) we have with other persons (or characters or objects if one prefers) are determined by the natures of the persons involved. I do not really arbitrate that, and neither does the other person. It is... kind like an emergent property of the universe? Some describe these inevitable relationships or interactions as a "universal consciousness." I tend to avoid such language, though.

As for why see things this way? It's... just the way I see things and experience things. Almost no one is raised Pagan and I am no exception, but I spent a lot of time in the woods as a kid. The interactions I had there? I experienced a sense of characters/spirits/persons there before I knew the word "animism" or "paganism." I would go out in the woods to listen to Wind. Wind didn't speak English, but there was a communication there... a feeling - like Wind was the Voice of the Forest. I've had these kinds experiences from a very young age, and that's probably why I jumped on Paganism once I learned it existed. It reflected my experiences and was community that actually understood what I was experiencing.

For those who have never had these kinds experiences, animism - or seeing gods/spirits/persons in nature - is probably incomprehensible. I learned there are humans who can't visualize, so it is not hard to suppose there are humans blind to the voices of non-human persons especially when mainstream culture conditions its people to ignore all of them. What we believe about the world dramatically impacts how we interact with the world. If you believe what you are told about humans being the only persons, you will treat other non-human persons accordingly.

In an age where the failure of humans to consider non-human persons is wrecking the planet, I think the perspective of animism is more relevant now than it's ever been. So many have forgotten how (or refuse) to listen to the wind, or speak to the stones... I just... don't have a lot of hope. When you view the world around you as "inanimate objects" it's a free pass to use and abuse. When you see the world as full of individual characters/persons with their own natures, you pause a bit. You think about that relationship, their nature and your nature, what you take and what you should perhaps give back. It promotes a deeper respect and stewardship of the land and the peoples living there. Animism isn't necessary for such respect or stewardship, but it creates a stewardship that isn't anthropocentric in orientation.

So why give thanks to the things that build up our world? Because you want to. Because that's what your life experiences tell you to do. Because you can hear the "voices" of non-human persons even if others can't. Because you recognize your total dependence on all these other persons. Because it cultivates good character to say thanks and count one's blessings. Because it is, well... one's religion (way of life). Others have different ways. Others may not understand because it is not their way. That's fine.

Like, winner, friendly, informative, optimistic.

I get you.

ecco · Sep 25, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes, I can because we are talking about all of the universe and how you can use science on all of the universe. You use observation in that there haven't been observed any Gods related to the claims of Gods and that science and logic explain it differently.
Further you admitted that that unknown doesn't mean doesn't exist. So you can't have parts of the universe, which can't be checked by science.

If you are going by induction, i.e. there are no Black swans, it stops right there. Because then it is so far unknown, but that doesn't mean doesn't exist. You admitted that yourself.
We are 2 in this debate and I have done this before too. Your options are limited because you use science and logic. There are only so few ways you can do that with the methodologies of science and logic.

Now let us go deeper. That I say that God created the Universe, doesn't cause it to be so. Nor that someone says there are no Gods. The act of saying something about something outside a given person doesn't cause it to be so. That goes for both existence and non-existence.
So here is what you are doing. I will use a standard teapot as example. You say that there is no tea in it and I look and say, that is correct, there is air in it, so there is no tea. That involves observation and logic.
So your argument is this. People claim something exists. We check and by science find out something else is going on and by the ontological version of the law of non-contradiction there can't both be and not be something at the same time and space and in a given sense.

Consider this by way of a chess game. In any given position for the next move there is a limited number of moves possible. That same is the case by the standards of science and logic. You use science and logic. That limits how you can use arguments to support your claim.
So I can anticipate your next move by way of the opening you chose because not all moves will win or indeed be science and logic. You try to "win" by proving by science and logic that Gods doesn't exist.
So here is the formal version of your argument:

-Something is not so just because it is claimed to be so.
-You check by observation and apply logic in part.
-For all Gods claimed we have checked by observation and there are no Gods.

The following version you could try doesn't work:
-All cases of Gods has been humans claiming there are Gods for other reasons than claiming there exist Gods, therefore there are no Gods.
Now I will show you, how this version doesn't work.
From the fact, that there are other reasons for claiming Gods exist, doesn't determine if Gods exist. That is so, because if someone claimed bacteria existed for another reason than biology, that doesn't solve if bacteria exist or not. The existence of something outside the minds of humans are determined by looking outside.

As for the psychology involved I have no problem stating something is unknown and that includes that it is unknown what the actual metaphysical status of reality is.
Now that connects to my answer involving the cosmological principle. That is not science and while I accept what we can in practice check if there is tea or not in a teapot we can observe, we can't check using pure science, what happen back in time around the Big Bang. That is theoretical physics, because it is in part speculative and not just based on direct observation. The speculative part involves philosophy as per the cosmological principle.

So here is my move explained. Your opening is to use science and ontological logic as per the law of non-contradiction. That limits your options because you have to check by using observation as per science. You can't use philosophical or psychological reasons. You are committed to using observation to check.
Now for your concrete move I choose to counter with a creation God at the time of the Big Bang. Such a version is in effect already accepted for the creation part by e.g. the Catholic Church. Now we can argue with rational justification if that is reasonable, but that is not science. That is philosophy.

So you chose the rules and I followed the rules as per science and logic. The existence of Gods are per science decided by observation and not philosophy or psychology.
Thus I chose to answer with the limitations of theoretical physics in regards to the Big Bang.

Now ecco, just as you in all likelihood have done this before and so have I. I have done it for over 20 years now functional day and day out for the general problems of: How do we know with proof when we claim something?
I am skeptic and that is what skeptics do. They check general and specific claims of proof.

So don't use psychology or philosophy outside logic. Stick to science and logic. And now your move.

I hope you realize that I will not bother responding to everything in that immense wall of words.

mikkel_the_dane said:
So for being a God, it is a creator God that has created the universe. I.e. started the Big Bang. That is standard religious reasoning, the universe can't come about by itself and thus a God started it all.

Here you attempt to create a strawman. Perhaps you have never heard of Athena or Eros. They were considered to be gods. They were not attributed to having been Creators Of The Universe.

For some reason, you believe that I must show who or how or what created the universe in order to dismiss gods. I don't.

mikkel_the_dane said:
If you are going by induction, i.e. there are no Black swans, it stops right there. Because then it is so far unknown, but that doesn't mean doesn't exist.

This is just another version of a silly argument that god-believers love to trot out. It is usually expressed as "you can't know everything, therefore you can't know gods don't exist".

I don't have to know everything to know that gods were created by man in man's own image(s). The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.

mikkel_the_dane said:
We are 2 in this debate and I have done this before too. Your options are limited

If you have done this so many times before, I'm sure I'm not the first person to point out your proclivity for creating strawmen. Why would you go on doing it?

mikkel_the_dane said:
So your argument is this. People claim something exists. We check and by science find out something else is going on and by the ontological version of the law of non-contradiction there can't both be and not be something at the same time and space and in a given sense.

Another strawman.

Don't you understand, after all these years you have been "debating", that when you assert what the other person's argument is, you have lost the argument and all claims of credibility.

mikkel_the_dane said:
-Something is not so just because it is claimed to be so.
-You check by observation and apply logic in part.
-For all Gods claimed we have checked by observation and there are no Gods.

Your comments are getting foggier and foggier. Is that just another part of another strawman?

mikkel_the_dane said:
Thus I chose to answer with the limitations of theoretical physics in regards to the Big Bang.

Don't you ever tire of erecting strawman? Don't you realize how transparent that is? The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. My argument is as valid now as it would have been back when people still believed in a steady-state universe.

mikkel_the_dane · Sep 25, 2020

ecco said:
...

I don't have to know everything to know that gods were created by man in man's own image(s). The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.

...

Premise 1: The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Therefore there exist no gods.

ecco · Sep 25, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
Premise 1: The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Therefore there exist no gods.

Do Ssdfaeas actually exist if the very concept of Ssdfaeas comes from man's imaginings?

Do Tiny Faries, so small that 100 of them can dance on the head of a pin, actually exist if the very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings?

You seem to be of the school of thought...

Premise 1: The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, gods can actually exist.

Premise 1: The very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin can actually exist.

Saint Frankenstein · Sep 25, 2020

ecco said:
Is that true of the Romans and Greeks with their many SuperHuman gods?

Definitely. It's true of all of indigenous polytheistic folkways.

Left Coast · Sep 25, 2020

Quintessence said:
It's hard to describe. The best way I can think of to put it is that they are individual characters in the world I exist in. They have their own distinct natures or identities, their own ways of life or existing, their own dynamic cycles of becoming (births) and unbecoming (deaths), their own connections with others, their own distinct natures that change as they interact with other characters. I guess it's a way of understanding identity and relationships? A feeling of sorts? It is hard to put to words. We have largely lost good ways of talking about it so I struggle to articulate it.

You've made reference to this a few times - we don't the words to describe it anymore. When did we have such words?

With the description you've given, literally every single thing I can think of could be called a person. But I recall earlier you said you don't think everything is a person.

Any connection and interaction between two things is a relationship - they do not require "consciousness" for either party. Perhaps a good way to describe animism is to point out the animist does not believe in one-sided relationships?

A relationship between persons requires it, though. If I say I'm in a relationship with someone, but they never talk to me, never see me, have no connection to me, in fact are incapable of doing any of those things - that's about as one-sided as it gets.

You can talk about a relationship in sort of physical or conceptual terms, like the interaction of two chemicals when combined, or the relationship between love and lust. But the type of relationships we're talking about are ones between people.

I don't think agency is that important here, nor do I see myself as a sole arbiter. Relationships just happen by virtue of things existing in the same time and space as each other (and beyond - all things in the universe are interconnected and interrelated). The relationships (or interactions, if one prefers) we have with other persons (or characters or objects if one prefers) are determined by the natures of the persons involved. I do not really arbitrate that, and neither does the other person. It is... kind like an emergent property of the universe? Some describe these inevitable relationships or interactions as a "universal consciousness." I tend to avoid such language, though.

Two different senses of relationship here, as I was describing above.

As for why see things this way? It's... just the way I see things and experience things. Almost no one is raised Pagan and I am no exception, but I spent a lot of time in the woods as a kid. The interactions I had there? I experienced a sense of characters/spirits/persons there before I knew the word "animism" or "paganism." I would go out in the woods to listen to Wind. Wind didn't speak English, but there was a communication there... a feeling - like Wind was the Voice of the Forest. I've had these kinds experiences from a very young age, and that's probably why I jumped on Paganism once I learned it existed. It reflected my experiences and was community that actually understood what I was experiencing.

For those who have never had these kinds experiences, animism - or seeing gods/spirits/persons in nature - is probably incomprehensible. I learned there are humans who can't visualize, so it is not hard to suppose there are humans blind to the voices of non-human persons especially when mainstream culture conditions its people to ignore all of them. What we believe about the world dramatically impacts how we interact with the world. If you believe what you are told about humans being the only persons, you will treat other non-human persons accordingly.

The thing is, a blind person can reasonably figure out that other people are capable of a sense that she's not because of the other independently verifiable evidence available to her. No such evidence exists (correct me if I'm wrong) for inanimate objects or unconscious forces like wind speaking to people. So while I understand your analogy, I don't think it works.

In an age where the failure of humans to consider non-human persons is wrecking the planet, I think the perspective of animism is more relevant now than it's ever been. So many have forgotten how (or refuse) to listen to the wind, or speak to the stones... I just... don't have a lot of hope. When you view the world around you as "inanimate objects" it's a free pass to use and abuse. When you see the world as full of individual characters/persons with their own natures, you pause a bit. You think about that relationship, their nature and your nature, what you take and what you should perhaps give back. It promotes a deeper respect and stewardship of the land and the peoples living there. Animism isn't necessary for such respect or stewardship, but it creates a stewardship that isn't anthropocentric in orientation.

I appreciate that you added the last sentence there. I can understand why you might find animism helpful in this regard, but I also don't think it's necessary. My concern for the environment and for animal welfare, for example, coincide quite nicely with my belief that inanimate objects aren't people.

So why give thanks to the things that build up our world? Because you want to. Because that's what your life experiences tell you to do. Because you can hear the "voices" of non-human persons even if others can't. Because you recognize your total dependence on all these other persons. Because it cultivates good character to say thanks and count one's blessings. Because it is, well... one's religion (way of life). Others have different ways. Others may not understand because it is not their way. That's fine.

And the thing is Quint, if you want to worship the wind and the sun, and it makes you happy and fulfilled, go right ahead, I'm not here to stop you. We can certainly agree about the importance of thankfulness and that the universe is deeply interconnected.

mikkel_the_dane · Sep 25, 2020

ecco said:
Do Ssdfaeas actually exist if the very concept of Ssdfaeas comes from man's imaginings?

Do Tiny Faries, so small that 100 of them can dance on the head of a pin, actually exist if the very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings?

You seem to be of the school of thought...

Premise 1: The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, gods can actually exist.

Premise 1: The very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin can actually exist.

No, as for the bold ones. That is not my position.
As far as I can tell you don't accept the unknown as a true answer in some, but not all cases. I do. Since we are in effect doing different versions of what knowledge is, this thread belongs in philosophy and not science.

oldbadger · Sep 26, 2020

rational experiences said:
Science already prove the non existence of God.

No.....
Since everything, force and all else is part of God that would be hard for science to do....... to disprove such existence.

But God is too huge to be particularly aware of this planet, or (possibly) even this universe.

oldbadger · Sep 26, 2020

ecco said:
Do Ssdfaeas actually exist if the very concept of Ssdfaeas comes from man's imaginings?

Do Tiny Faries, so small that 100 of them can dance on the head of a pin, actually exist if the very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings?

You seem to be of the school of thought...

Premise 1: The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, gods can actually exist.

Premise 1: The very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is a creation of man's imaginings.
Conclusion: Nevertheless, Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin can actually exist.

Oh no! No!
My wife finds pork pies gone from the fridge, and sticky Jam on the worktop. I have always insisted that I am innocent and that the sticky Jam fairies and pork pie fairies come in the night, I've even chased them off on occasions.
But if she reads your post I'm stuffed.

ecco · Sep 26, 2020

mikkel_the_dane said:
No, as for the bold ones. That is not my position.
As far as I can tell you don't accept the unknown as a true answer in some, but not all cases. I do.

What does that even mean: "accept the unknown as a true answer in some, but not all cases"?

mikkel_the_dane said:
Since we are in effect doing different versions of what knowledge is, this thread belongs in philosophy and not science.

It is in philosophy. You started it there. Since the discussion was about the-non-existence-of-gods, I didn't understand why you started this thread in the philosophy forum instead of religion. Maybe you didn't want too many viewers.

Nevertheless, you failed to address:

Do Ssdfaeas actually exist if the very concept of Ssdfaeas comes from man's imaginings?
Do Tiny Faries, so small that 100 of them can dance on the head of a pin, actually exist if the very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings?

It's not about two different versions of knowledge.

It is accepted knowledge that humans have come up with words and concepts throughout history.

It is accepted knowledge some of these words and concepts have no basis in fact or reality.

mikkel_the_dane · Sep 26, 2020

ecco said:
...
It is accepted knowledge that humans have come up with words and concepts throughout history.

It is accepted knowledge some of these words and concepts have no basis in fact or reality.

And it ends here. Because if we know some of them have no basis in fact or reality, it means that we have checked. And my point is that there are some versions of religion in regards to metaphysics, which can't be checked. Because we end in metaphysics and that is not just religious.
There is a class of claims in regards to metaphysics which can't be checked by science. And that is not just limited to metaphysical idealism. And there is a good reason how science uses methodological naturalism and not philosophical/metaphysical naturalism.
We have already been here. The cosmological principle is a part of methodological naturalism and it doesn't prove that the beginning of the universe was natural. Further it is functional impossible to measure the actual conditions at the beginning of the universe. There is a reason for how it is named theoretical physics.
I am in fact using the God of the gabs and know that. I am doing it because there is a limit to what we can check in fact or reality.

So I get you now. Some versions of Gods have been checked and have no basis in fact of reality. Therefore it follows as proof that all versions of Gods have no basis in fact or reality, though some of those not checked can't be checked by science. I get it!
So we will leave it here and you can consider yourself the winner. Now do me a favor. Write to all relevant scientific journals and societies. This is huge!!! Why have you kept it to yourself? It is up there along Einstein and the rest of the big names. Get it published and I guarantee there is Nobel Prize in it. 100%

ecco · Sep 26, 2020

ecco said:
Nevertheless, you failed to address:

Do Ssdfaeas actually exist if the very concept of Ssdfaeas comes from man's imaginings?

Do Tiny Faries, so small that 100 of them can dance on the head of a pin, actually exist if the very concept of Tiny Faries dancing on the head of a pin is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings?

Are you afraid to answer the question? Would your answer make you think?

mikkel_the_dane said:
The cosmological principle is a part of methodological naturalism and it doesn't prove that the beginning of the universe was natural.

Is this your counter-argument: There is no proof that the universe is natural therefore GodDidIt? That's very weak on a number of levels.

There is no proof that The Genesis Flood never occurred, therefore the Genesis flood must be true and real?

Really?

mikkel_the_dane said:
So we will leave it here and you can consider yourself the winner. Now do me a favor. Write to all relevant scientific journals and societies. This is huge!!! Why have you kept it to yourself? It is up there along Einstein and the rest of the big names. Get it published and I guarantee there is Nobel Prize in it. 100%

You cannot find fault with my argument and you cannot provide a decent counter-argument so you resort to sarcastic hand-waving. I'm not surprised.

Bear Wild · Sep 26, 2020

Left Coast said:
My issue was with your belief that religious claims shouldn't be subject to the same critical thinking as any other belief.

While there are amazing new findings in neuroscience which helps us to explain how and why we think and what influences our beliefs, science cannot tell us how we as individuals see our relationship to the world or help us to deal with a subject like death or that the world may seem unfair. Science can provide guidance for these problems and my belief is that we should use what we learn from science but in the end religion is the individual's decision to decide how to address these problems and the community that gives them the most support. Thus religion does not do as well with critical thinking as other areas of discussion because humans are primarily emotionally motivated animals with a cognitive component trying to keep things controlled and I would say that religion is very emotionally driven for most.

Bear Wild · Sep 26, 2020

Left Coast said:
What does sacred mean to you? It seems like a "god" to you is just...something you deeply respect or value? Which is fine, as far as it goes. I can deeply respect or value something without thinking of it as a deity, and I imagine you can too, so I just wonder what the dividing line is.

I will do my best to answer. So what does sacred mean? This definition from the internet seems useful - Something regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual. Thus it is something of such importance that it is given the greatest respect and treated with reciprocity. Nature and its varied life is therefore sacred and should be treated with the greatest respect taking only what you need with thankfulness to what it gives and giving back what you can.

What is a god or goddess or the spirit of a tree, river or forest? Quintessence gave an excellent description above but here is my input. The spirit of a river is the sum total of all of its aspects both living and nonliving which is far greater than just a body of water. A river provides a home, food and of course water not just to those that live in the river since its influence extends well beyond into the land. If that river is particularly important to an individual or group, humans then attribute it with what humans understand and anthropomorphize giving it a human quality. Thus the Boyne river is the revered as the goddess Boann. Anthropomorphism is not scientific and not acceptable in scientific studies but because of the humans evolved their neurologic connection for social behaviors it helps give meaning to the individual and how they feel about this relationship. Thus having reverence for an aspect in nature that is so important to that individual as to be seen as far more than a body of water flowing, the river with all that it does and means to that individual or group is what makes is a goddess deserving the greatest of respect.

or consider this
Thunder Storms in particular have a direct effect (including an emotional effect) on the life that experiences them so it is not surprising that so many religions have a god associated with thunder and storms. Interestingly the reactions of chimpanzees to storms when the perform unique displays even if no other chimp is around may be an insight or at least something to think about.

There is more if you want to know but I feel I then write too much and long posts can be too long. Appreciate the questions.

rational experiences · Sep 27, 2020

oldbadger said:
No.....
Since everything, force and all else is part of God that would be hard for science to do....... to disprove such existence.

But God is too huge to be particularly aware of this planet, or (possibly) even this universe.

They did disprove God.

His story says. Male scientist human living on a stone planet that owns its own heavenly gases.

Lives in the natural state.

Quotes his science is a God thesis. About the stone fusion body, Knowledge about gases in the heavenly body. Male theist....a the ist. Satan he says. Tan information, and then quotes self a Satan ist.

As that human male theist quotes God does not exist in theory. And does.

Says he is the inventor/creator self, a formula/design theorist. Makes the quote....theo of God inference and ist....Satanist. With every intent to change natural....for natural he owns first.

Self male and human being just a human. Every intent.

Now he owns 2 false theories. One for self presence, male human....when he owns a one of whole body past any animal life....the beast before him.

Then he owned another theory about how God he said was formed....which relates to his design, his design building, his machine, how to own control to force change, to be a scientist.

For when he thinks on or about natural he is not a scientist, he is a theorist.

Thinking about theo......God inferences.

Now if he quotes God does not yet exist, as a theist, then he has already proven to self that God by his terms science, machine and reaction does not yet exist.

And he makes that quote in his own thoughts.

Want to argue about the use of human consciousness? Seeing that is all that you have as a self FIRST, and origin?

Then he uses his machine to take natural mass of the Earth, which a male human God stone or One quote and converts it and makes it change into what he says is Satan....the origin of the Sin of God he quotes...burning spirits in Hell.

Want to argue about that theory also do you?

Now when you quote stone mountain. And build a pyramid...to you the pyramid was natural God the stone.

Yet you owned Temples and machines, which is not the theory, mountain peak above water, flat lined mass to water base...the flooded Earth in the presence RADIATION mass...which today you either quote is an Ark or a Ufo.

Claiming as a male and a human designer God told you how to build that apparition.

As a term, burning spirit and burning spirit gas. For when the ARK or UFO is in the gas atmosphere it is burning. Male reasoning, when I burnt the bush or scorched the ground mass which I personally was converting as a scientist against God existing.........and then wants to argue about original thesis of what God meant to him in science.

His theory, did not own the creation of stone. His science theory was never about natural, it was how to force change natural. So his so called string theories are all lies. For it is about how to force change natural. And he owns that recognition first even before he puts it all together as a formula and a machine.

So first of all in history he never was Mr know it all....for if he believed what he knew about natural as natural, then he would not have changed it. He would have honoured its presence. And he paid it no honour. So he did not know it all...for the once concept that he ignored was that it was natural and supported his life.

No argument in other words as a male scientist for you were told by science for science as scientist that you only tell lies.

oldbadger · Sep 28, 2020

rational experiences said:
No argument in other words as a male scientist for you were told by science for science as scientist that you only tell lies.

What lies?
What lies have I told?
Try and answer in one clear paragraph....

rational experiences · Sep 28, 2020

oldbadger said:
What lies?
What lies have I told?
Try and answer in one clear paragraph....

That God did not exist, when the term God was planet Earth as taught. STone philosophy. And that stone had released its gases (spirit compared to mass) into the space body. God by a human teaching. Only living humans tell stories.

oldbadger · Sep 28, 2020

rational experiences said:
That God did not exist, when the term God was planet Earth as taught. STone philosophy. And that stone had released its gases (spirit compared to mass) into the space body. God by a human teaching. Only living humans tell stories.

I didn't lie about that!
I'm a Deist!

rational experiences · Sep 28, 2020

oldbadger said:
I didn't lie about that!
I'm a Deist!

Does science in their one mind ownership self human now understand.

A thinking human quotes God, and says, released its spirit into the body of space...as a one of human scientific thesis about God.

Yet God in a human teaching is the philosophy of the stone. Seeing human science takes their machine presence from the body mass of the planet upon which they live.

So then any one single human self to think, says we can all think and tell stories, even a science self just thinks first. Thinking does not own the natural massed history of creation in space.

Then you realise a lot of human scientists in groups are coerced to not think for self.

That idealism is quoted as a cult mentality. If you do not agree then remove yourself mentality.

Then you realise, so how does human truth be spoken to others in that group mentality?

The true reasoning, it never was.

So when science quotes God....they quote a thought story. Claim God released its spirits into the spatial body. Said by human quote.

That is the same form of theorising a big bang self says and hopes it means God.

Yet the whole time he was discussing planet Earth. For no theorist "theo" meaning God as a human can make any other unnatural claim. When science is not speaking on behalf of creation. Science is motivated for a formula for a design to make the design from mass of the Earth planet he stands on...so then quotes now my machine is God.

Then he also tries to claim and I am God and my machine is God and my control of my machine will then get the power of God. So we wonder at his mentality.

Science is directly owned by planet Earth by machine only.

When science in modern times tries to give God a new identification preaching, they are lying. For they claim that God the planet story is the big bang theory.

mikkel_the_dane · Sep 29, 2020

ecco said:
...

You cannot find fault with my argument and you cannot provide a decent counter-argument so you resort to sarcastic hand-waving. I'm not surprised.

Your understanding of an argument is subjective and so is mine. But you can't apparently spot your own subjectivity, so you win subjectively. It is way more important for you apparently to be right than me, so you win. You are now the master of the Universe and I don't care, because my life goes on.

So here is it: You won. That is not the first time that I have lost. I have done this for over 20 years now and according to the formal reasoning you use as used by others I am cognitively wrong; though not morally wrong. Now I accept that and then check the following: I am still here and apparently according to health personal and related lines of work, I cope good enough as a human. So I really don't care when entering in these kinds of arguments when they reach this state. I hoped you had a new one that I haven't heard before. You didn't.

Your argument is this:
So far some cases of God have been checked and turned out to be without evidences.
All these cases where humans claiming there was such a God.
Therefore it follows for all cases of Gods and not just those cases checked, that all cases are without evidence and Gods don't exist.

That is to the best of my ability as how I understand your argument and we disagree about this:
"...it follows for all cases of Gods and not just those cases checked, that all cases are without evidence and Gods don't exist."

So you win. We understand it differently and you really ought to try to get a Nobel Prize.

The non-existence of Gods

My own religion

Veteran Member

My own religion

Veteran Member

Wanderer From Afar

This Is Water

My own religion

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

My own religion

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

My own religion