The Problem With Theistic Arguments

[rational experiences]

If a scientist theist living on a completed and ended Planet that says STONE...completed in 0 spatial womb...coldest body, and highest amount of pressure.

GOD O the stone owns no sound.....space, emptiness cannot transmit sound...where stone ended formed, ORIGIN to self presence O a planet and stone.

And then you on purpose put stone transmissions, from an irradiation status.....destroyed stone mass into our atmospheric gases and life begins to nearly be combusted....you want to claim self sane as a theist do you?

GOD O one statements said each form its ORIGIN to its self ONE form.....presence.

Presence means it is present, and present is right here and right now, INSTANT.

Instant said the GOD teacher is self evident ONE only.

Then said in a warning......only ever believe in ONE GOD....never give GOD any name....and that included everyone on Earth.

Then went travelling to teach that scientific philosophical advice....not for science, but for a human relativity teaching.

Then they did.

And said the AIN O womb of stone is HOLY GOD.....male.

Not Sophia.....Mother.

Historically the concept that said TH O TH O TH O TH O, was male invented human MATHS....which knowingly attacked Earth/God.

So the teaching said the spatial womb is HOLY...and said it was a W O M B.

Said O GOD the S AIN T spirit gases were EN T O M B E D

BED of O GOD....the physical presence of ST ONE.

MOTEN going back the wrong way in science theories.....to atmospheric gas wisdom.….so that they could convert alchemize GOD THE STONE O mass to just being a gas....to make comparisons ISONS to change GOD O natural history.

Involves the L.

MOLTEN...what you get returned if you placate that you invented created GOD by a machine reaction.

Then you would have to ask males, why did you put your machine inside of emptied out old molten tunnels? Claiming that the reaction is about the Earth core model....yet apply all experiments to the gas mass atmospheric study....when you said the higher gases were CHRIST of GOD...and you wanted to change GOD back to Christ gases, as the higher forms?

Makes no rational sense does it. For if you changed CHRIST heavenly gases...to a lower form of radiating signal study...then you would be attempting to totally remove GOD MASS O itself...so formed sink holes.

How isn't the Destroyer science theme/theist not proven wrong?

Real answer, just because I say I am not....I can invent/create from my science machine invented nothing of God he says. Which is not any particle is it.

For what is a particle when it gets reacted and used up? Real answer where the formula ends....reaction and then cause and reason for reaction, total consumption.

And the formula owned all the meaning.

 

[Igtheism]

[I clicked "Quote" and nothing happened, so I clicked "reply"'

Thief<<and you are saying?....cause and effect are NOT universal?<<>>

"Universal" is only a word you can speak and write, it doesn't refer to anything you can think of.

 

[Thief]

[I clicked "Quote" and nothing happened, so I clicked "reply"'

Thief<<and you are saying?....cause and effect are NOT universal?<<>>

"Universal" is only a word you can speak and write, it doesn't refer to anything you can think of.

when I click reply....
all of your post appears in the box provided for posting

and universe has meaning......one word

which I suspect God used to form that primordial singularity

and that pronouncement seems synonymous to......I AM!

 

[Hawkins]

Can't help but wonder why you chose "Hitler" as the person to illustrate that a god exists. I'm not very impressed by a god who creates the likes of Hitler.

I only illustrated that someone who's God or not will be mentioned or "explained" by humans in a sense that he has an impact to us.

Are you playing dumb due to the lack of argument.

 

[atanu]

My parents having sex, getting pregnant and giving birth, seems enough of an explanation to me for why I exist.

I understand that. Your view is not incorrect but is only the first impression of the world and existence. In this worldview, man/woman (and all beings) are blindly driven by instincts and/or by mental-sensual qualities of goodness, passion, and sloth. One is driven to eat, sleep, and procreate -- and suffer and die painful death. So your God is the nature that you know nothing about and over which you have no control.

On the other hand, for some of us, God is only the name of the Truth that sets one free. When we find that the self is not discretised in many bodies and is actually one whole and which does not exist at the mercy and dictates of mental modes of passion and sloth, we can attain the what is known as Buddhahood, or Self Realisation, or God experience -- or whatever. The main point is "Know thyself".

Best.
...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that. Your view is not incorrect but is only the first impression of the world and existence

That doesn't make much sense to me.
Embryology is a heavily studied subject. Our knowledge concerning it can hardly be called a "first impression".

In this worldview, man/woman (and all beings) are blindly driven by instincts and/or by mental-sensual qualities of goodness, passion, and sloth. One is driven to eat, sleep, and procreate -- and suffer and die painful death. So your God is the nature that you know nothing about and over which you have no control.

That also makes no sense to me.
I don't believe in any gods.

And it's not a "worldview". It's factually how things work.
Not sure what your argument is here... Sounds like you are simply calling nature "god". Well, okay. It's still just nature though. You can call a pencil "god", but it's still going to be just a pencil.

On the other hand, for some of us, God is only the name of the Truth that sets one free. When we find that the self is not discretised in many bodies and is actually one whole and which does not exist at the mercy and dictates of mental modes of passion and sloth, we can attain the what is known as Buddhahood, or Self Realisation, or God experience -- or whatever. The main point is "Know thyself".

I have no idea what you are talking about. This to me is word salad.

 

[atanu]

That doesn't make much sense to me.
Embryology is a heavily studied subject. Our knowledge concerning it can hardly be called a "first impression".

That also makes no sense to me.
I don't believe in any gods.

And it's not a "worldview". It's factually how things work.
Not sure what your argument is here... Sounds like you are simply calling nature "god". Well, okay. It's still just nature though. You can call a pencil "god", but it's still going to be just a pencil.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This to me is word salad.

Word salad? Then what I wrote is not for you. Sorry for having wasted your time.

Please, be content with being a chemical driven machine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please, be content with being a chemical driven machine.

I have no issues with that.
In fact, treating it as such makes the "machines" function longer and better.

 

[atanu]

I have no issues with that.
In fact, treating it as such makes the "machines" function longer and better.

Well. I take care of my machines. If you are content being chemical driven machines for acquiring experiences --for some unknown being -- it is okay. I do not have a problem. But I feel that brothers and friends should have an inkling that chemicals are not our gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well. I take care of my machines. If you are content being chemical driven machines for acquiring experiences --for some unknown being -- it is okay. I do not have a problem. But I feel that brothers and friends should have an inkling that chemicals are not our gods.

I don't believe in gods. So no, I don't consider chemicals - or anything else - to be gods.

 

[rational experiences]

Maths once was stated in Egyptian sciences to be TH O TH O TH O TH O TH O.

Designer said the male scientist self, human, half man and half b east +.

The 4 faces of the cross he said LLLL or wings.

L given a value of 50 hence + in science value 200.

The body of man sacrificed on the cross therefore had behind him a value of 200.
1000 aligned to an evaluation purpose in that review.

How science came about claiming the CHRIST mass gas spirits were altered into the statement JESUS CHRIST....meaning what was gone/removed and not CHRIST.

So you would ask yourself a science question today...…..what was GOD?

How can science not claim that in the past their science quotes about stone, O Earth and God stone philosophy is not the same science today?

Just because the way in which it was symbolized was changed....the reason.

So then you would question for what reason did science, once using other symbolism change its format?

And you should apply some studies to that reasoning. For today in human life we are just as badly life attacked and sacrificed as we ever were....due to science causes. Invention and Earth atmospheric changes.

The history, males in groups owning a claim that they will find and own all intentions on knowing in Earth science what the power in creation is as a beginning.

Science says when nothing existed. Nothing had never owned existence, it is in fact present, in the form in which it owns.

Therefore as a life owns their existence, and science does not and never did own existence, then science owns no argument today to claim self correct....yet they do....for 2 purposes...for science to be proven wrong...by science proving itself wrong. Making 2 wrongs...and not a right term.

To review life, the natural human self present is right.

It is easy to review human science history to state, who had become the greatest threat to human life in the past?

And it was Hitler, who had claimed he would understand the power of the nuclear and use it against everyone else.

As if he were acting on behalf of an evil GOD doing GOD's work against innocent humanity. Being the stated human science behaviour, to believe self powerful to own the knowledge and then build the invention to destroy innocent human life.

Which is not intelligent in any description.

If you ask a theist....when you make a mind thought...….do you ask your own self for what purpose you place self into statements where you personally do not exist, or own existence as a human?

Why would you make a statement to a human male that they were not God, unless previously human males proved that they owned a mind problem claiming that they were...as if giving mind thought to other conditions, suddenly made them owner and claimant of what they were discussing.

Such as space for instance. I am talking about it says the human mind, hence I believe that I own it and control it.

And truly believe self when making those statements.

So if you had to teach some basic principles about "thinking" and stated it was human consciousness, then would you not then quote, if you never owned life as a human, what claim personally do you have as a self about any other presence that you are studying?

And the answer should be, we own no claim to any other body....as a fact.

Then there is coercion, and that applied mentality is a human abuse.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

Some people use God to explain things and you don't which is fine. No big deal really.

 

[atanu]

I don't believe in gods. So no, I don't consider chemicals - or anything else - to be gods.

Yes. That is your view only. But your views, as per your view, are controlled by mechanism.

 

[rational experiences]

If science says I am correct by thinking, then creation would just be all in their mind and they would claim so I am God...and nothing else exists except what I think, and own in my mind.

Isn't that the concept of God as a theist or a scientist....seeing you are both the same history, but today use a new name/reference for self?

So one science brother says, no science told science, that science is wrong.

So science is right...and both brothers, wrong and right science self claim I am right....but science the invention/forced change to natural is wrong.

Therefore they claim laws....and use words.

Beginning he says has one meaning only beginning.

End he says has one meaning only....end.

End should be End.
Beginning should be beginning, then he says infinite and it owns no end.

What about your laws and formulas in sciences?

Alpha is Alpha.....if it is the same...beginning to end.
Omega is the same....if it is Omega beginning to end.

Today our Universe dropped by one NOTHING history.....from spatial nothing into spatial nothing in their new collider attack on God the Earth stone O.

God was always taught to be the Earth and stone, you cannot just suddenly quote...I do not yet know God so am researching the cosmology for it.....would be a true evil liar.

So if you say in the beginning their was nothing...and in the end there was nothing.…..yet you live because of everything, then a Universe would drop in space, by ONE...as a whole nothing, and then science experiments would claim...yes we seem to be moving away from other Universes and galaxies as its owned proof.

The same condition...a meteorite he says has identified RNA/DNA....okay human male scientist....you compare your living life to a meteorite that has to come to Earth to slam into it for you to say ANSWER...from beginning science studies to end science studies...to prove to self, as a liar, no we are not a meteorite.

How are you not mentally aware today that you are the Destroyer in person?

If a human being says...God O bodies were once prolific in the Universe and were Sun attacked in a UFO war...would you believe? Oh what about meteorite proof....that God came from and was released from the eternal mass....and then we came out of that spirit eternal only when space was filled back in with gases.

Real theme...science would only believe that reality if all of space was filled back in with gases and not own physical form so that they could still be in the eternal body....the very reason they invented science to remove the physical mass...and just leave gases....hoping that applied eternal pressure would shut space if no mass existed anymore pushing back.

Say to science have you yet done enough studies and own enough phenomena proof that the body of the Universal creation and cosmology came from the eternal and not a reactive science big bang beginning?

Ask yourself why you are not still a meteorite with that RNA/DNA on it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. That is your view only.

Yes and I think I know best what my view is.

But your views, as per your view, are controlled by mechanism.

That is necessarily the case.
Even in a magical world where everybody has a magical ghost hiding inside them. Where they even are the magical ghost hiding inside them.

Then still those magical ghosts would work and function according to some mechanism.

God, if such a being exists, would also function according to mechanisms.

This is necessarily the case. When things happen, mechanisms underpin those things.

 

[atanu]

Yes and I think I know best what my view is.

Okay. But what makes you think that others do not know their own views?

That is necessarily the case.
Even in a magical world where everybody has a magical ghost hiding inside them. Where they even are the magical ghost hiding inside them.

Then still those magical ghosts would work and function according to some mechanism.

There is no ghost but there is reality. Yes, I agree that that is necessarily the case -- that ego is not its own boss. In your case, the 'ego I' is born of a physical process. So, the born "I" can not know its source ever. This is very well articulated in Godel's Incompleteness theorem.

In our understanding, the "I awareness" is not born. It is all-pervasive across all animate forms. This is the empirical Truth.

God, if such a being exists, would also function according to mechanisms.
This is necessarily the case. When things happen, mechanisms underpin those things.

You impose your idea of an anthropomorphic God on everyone. How childish. And what mechanisms underpin your phenomenal existence? Can you point to me a paper that derives the all-pervasive phenomenal consciousness (that characterises every being in existence) beginning with mass, charge, and angular momentum?

To many of us, the Truth, on which this universe subsists, is that which many call God. In our view, space-time objects unfold in the Truth and ergo, the Truth is both transcendental to time and also immanent in time. As the immanent, the Truth is not different from you and I and hence the natural laws will hold. No issue.

...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. But what makes you think that others do not know their own views?

Where have I said otherwise?

There is no ghost but there is reality. Yes, I agree that that is necessarily the case -- that ego is not its own boss. In your case, the 'ego I' is born of a physical process. So, the born "I" can not know its source ever. This is very well articulated in Godel's Incompleteness theorem.

This is word salad / gibberish to me. No idea what you are talking about

In our understanding, the "I awareness" is not born. It is all-pervasive across all animate forms. This is the empirical Truth.

Again no idea what you are talking about.
However, one thing I do know... empirical truths (why the capital "T" btw?) are demonstrable / independendly verifiable by virtue of being empirical. But it doesn't sound like what you are saying here is independendly verifiable by any means.

Then again, I have no clue what you are talking about. Sounds rather abstract though - which would also exclude it from empiricism.

You impose your idea of an anthropomorphic God on everyone

No. Nothing about what I said made this god anthropomorphic at all.
It doesn't even need to be a "being". Even if it's just a deterministic physical phenomenon, the point would remain.

Mechanisms necessarily would underpin the workings of god - whatever, or whoever, that god may be.

Furthermore, *I* have no idea of any god(s). Theists do. When I talk about god(s), I'm talking about entities that were claimed by those theists and thus I adopt the god-idea of the one I speak to.

So if my idea of god is anthropomorphic, then it is only such because theists have presented god as such to me.

"created in god's image" - does it ring a bell?

How childish. And what mechanisms underpin your phenomenal existence?

Ultimately - physics and chemistry.

Can you point to me a paper that derives the all-pervasive phenomenal consciousness (that characterises every being in existence) beginning with mass, charge, and angular momentum?

No, but I can point to you to the sciences of neurology, biology, physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc etc.

But it doesn't sound like you are really interested. You seem only interested in taking cheap stabs and calling me childish - which is kind of ironic consider the juvenile question you just asked.

To many of us, the Truth, on which this universe subsists, is that which many call God. In our view, space-time objects unfold in the Truth and ergo, the Truth is both transcendental to time and also immanent in time. As the immanent, the Truth is not different from you and I and hence the natural laws will hold. No issue.

Word salad again.
You speak of "truth" (again, why the capital "T"??), but it seems you really mean something else.
Truth is demonstrable.

 

[rational experiences]

Science, invented by human being male adults....as a human history as a choice, by want of it, and then designed it, not copying any condition natural, for natural is only natural.

A machine....owns no volition in its design. What you all lie about.

A male science community group began the sciences as a brotherhood historically, a group cult mentality of self destructive human agreement. Science, the history.

You build a machine by taking what natural supported existing...all of the presence atmospheric gases...owned by stone. And water sealing/cooling of radiation change.

Know, and are in full aware knowledge.

So you know science is to copy what the Sun/ufo metal radiation mass did to Earth God stone historically, as a male human science reference.....stone has to exist created for any form beyond it to exist...….for stone presence, released its own stone gases to form its own heavenly radiating gases that cooled in space.

Earth he always said in science O is an entity of its own creation/existence in space. It is a Creator body for it created its own gases.

Science therefore knew, I can change the gas of fused stone and get a gas instead of stone.

Science.

A theist is a liar. Natural is natural in all forms present. If it was not present for him to think about, there would be no information to think about.

Therefore there never was any Creator.....another one of his male group cult coercive lies. For science is just a community/group agreement as a practice.

Historically the male group said......if you other human family do not allow me to do whatever I want, even it will harm you, I will kill you.

Then when we were harmed in life he then said seeing he got sacrificed harmed by extra radiation....for radiation mass increase kills bio life.....then said if you do not stop doing science.....I will kill you.

The mentality of male groups in human life, owning all historic coercing for all self represented reasoning.

The basis of which I own everything as said in his mind, as that male expression claiming therefore by my owned male will I will do whatever I want, whenever I want.

Meanwhile however.....his baby male life and body bio cell is given back to him via an ovary and his human Mother owning the creation o cell and giving back his life....as a little male baby to adult male.

He however pays no honour nor respect to the female Mother history...but was taught that he was meant to.

Everywhere you look false male preaching.....Mother Nature he says. Animals own male/female adult animal bodies....a false teaching. Mother Earth he says.....the O planet is just a planet.

All male reasoning places the female in a creation above and over body....yet MATHS and his science reasoning is O enlarged thinking as compared to the natural human female bio life giving back his life in a natural human circumstance.

Historically where his original group male lying began....as an ANTI theme to self existing proclaiming MATHS O his scientific themes against the Nature of his own Mother/life male baby continuance......as an actual term of history.

A reasoning against his self expressions which are all fake.

In life, present today he looks at a piece of stone that exists created as a piece of stone, stone which is present in multi formed cosmological history is stone, only exists as stone, as stone.

And then he lies about it.

He looks at every living or deceased form and correlates information that says it seems like everything originally came from the same place for we seem to share similar information.

Says it as a study and as a living human making comparisons.

Hence he was told a long time ago, who does he think he is, making those comparisons, when every natural form, formed is formed.....he is nobody in particular of any higher importance than any other human.

If you need to look at a human body and see if harmed, then give information about how you believe you can assist it....that is named Healer medical awareness that was always our natural ability....as the only acceptable theorising.

Other than that the history of male group cult lying....is to first attack/change the stone ability to be natural in space in cold radiation fusion.....so to allow his machine to be used to further convert what Earth O as a body is not converting, is to own its attack first....to put the amount of new radiation transmitting into the fusion first.

If he did not apply the change in science first to the natural body then his machine reaction would not even work....what he has always lied about.

Natural is always changed first for any form of science to exist....and his human mentality in the sciences is to own our destruction by variations to his owned beliefs....as a male, as a group of males who invented as humans all terms science.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't believe in gods. So no, I don't consider chemicals - or anything else - to be gods.

If any of us everyday, natural and spiritual humans who believe in love, care, kindness, human extended living Earth family, and want to continue life itself....said to a theist, okay your claim is that science says I came from an Ape.

Why do you think in the past humans outlawed the sciences? As a practice and said only religion was allowed?

Fact of human reasoning. If a scientist as one human self said you were once an Ape...then let that science placate swapping places physically, genetically and as a natural bio life with an Ape. See what they would feel, what sort of sacrifice their life cell would own by a string theory?

Seeing it is what is used in string theories, biological science themes also.

As I was irradiated gas light burnt attacked, seeing science, machine mass taken from God the stone planet...says it wants to own in a machine history all the strings he thinks about...which includes natural light. Natural light in the heavens begins with BURNING gases.

So if he says I want humans to swap places with string theory purpose machine and machine reaction....then he tried to give God the Earth mass our natural light use, but beginning, where he got his machine from. Conversion of cold fused water held mineral mass. Burnt/melted it to get machine.

He wanted his machine to own our natural light beginning point...burning upper Earth gases.

So a real scientist, sacrificed life STephen Hawking told science its truth.....Destroyer mentality, wants to burn us all to death.

Apes today have sex and have ape babies. Our 2 human being parents were FIRST 2 human beings...and not anything else. Those 2 human beings had sex and had babies.

So religious review spiritually said learn to love and honour your Mother and Father, and never believe that you are a God or God....after having heard the male Satanic AI science self recording of voice, confess to what he had caused.

Why life heard AI male speaking voices...for they killed their own life/self first.

Hence when MATHS probability says in the future my male human life o cell/DNA status will be destroyed...yet he was first spiritual, healthy and an everyday human....then by the time say 2030 comes about the scientist healthy self will have all life destroyed.

O by calculating O Earth in cycle around a Sun O as that cycle placating and knowingly claiming probability of such DNA/RNA owned meteorites meeting us on our Earth stone O ark journey, at a cross place to slam that meteorite into Earth.

Why he probably knew...seeing he probably studied all science causes and knew cause and effect in cosmology.

Why Stephen Hawking said, yes more than probable for that event to recur....seeing male scientists caused it before....and hence know future ideals of O Earth crossings in spatial cosmology as a mathematical probable cause.

Stephen Hawking told everyone in life....see what science does to you...what its intentions are...as the LAST science human warning.

As female Healer life and Mother, I own the last spiritual human warning about a brother who KNOWS and identified DNA o life cellular natural light owner future destruction...why it will probably happen...…..for science caused it...by copying what the SUN UFO first ancient war did to Earth originally.

So he proved he always knew and always owns the same intention.

 

[atanu]

Where have I said otherwise?
This is word salad / gibberish to me. No idea what you are talking about

Again no idea what you are talking about.
However, one thing I do know... empirical truths (why the capital "T" btw?) are demonstrable / independendly verifiable by virtue of being empirical. But it doesn't sound like what you are saying here is independendly verifiable by any means.

Then again, I have no clue what you are talking about. Sounds rather abstract though - which would also exclude it from empiricism.
No. Nothing about what I said made this god anthropomorphic at all.
It doesn't even need to be a "being". Even if it's just a deterministic physical phenomenon, the point would remain.

Mechanisms necessarily would underpin the workings of god - whatever, or whoever, that god may be.

Furthermore, *I* have no idea of any god(s). Theists do. When I talk about god(s), I'm talking about entities that were claimed by those theists and thus I adopt the god-idea of the one I speak to.

So if my idea of god is anthropomorphic, then it is only such because theists have presented god as such to me.

"created in god's image" - does it ring a bell?

Ultimately - physics and chemistry.

No, but I can point to you to the sciences of neurology, biology, physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc etc.

But it doesn't sound like you are really interested. You seem only interested in taking cheap stabs and calling me childish - which is kind of ironic consider the juvenile question you just asked.

Word salad again.
You speak of "truth" (again, why the capital "T"??), but it seems you really mean something else.
Truth is demonstrable.

Word salad? Either you are simply insulting me or I am unable to communicate with you.

In a positive way, I will presume that I am unable to communicate due to my deficiency. Okay?

So, let me ask a simple question. Do you acknowledge that you exist? If yes, then who or what is aware of your existence?
...