Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TacticalLoco · 01-24-2008, 09:53 AM

Your god construct is useless.

tjakey · 01-24-2008, 02:00 PM

The rest of us are having some fun and along comes TacticalLoco and just shoots 'em right between the eyes...one shot, one kill.

Civil1z@tion · 01-24-2008, 02:11 PM

Tell me if I am wrong in this but your God is a god which transcends the universe and science. Thus everything in the universe will have a non-divine cause except for the ultimate creation of the universe which God can be one step behind whatever we find as a cause. God does not intervene in this universe and we just end when we die.

All this sounds to me like you are an atheist who hasn't given up the super-being habit. For you, it seems from what you have said, God is merely the first "sufficient" cause for existence and beyond that doesn't really effect us. In reality, your God, just like all the others, is unnecessary. Using Occam's Razor, God is an extra cause which is unnecessary and thus atheism is the more logical position to take. But thanks for sharing.

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 01-24-2008, 02:18 PM

It doesn't appear that the OP was actually interested in a discussion. Perhaps just a personal mission statement.

aa5874 · 01-24-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condraz23

The existence of God is inherently unknowable.

How do you know that? You should deal with the evidence now, and avoid the unknown.

I find the evidence now, does not appear to support the Gods as presented today.

Species8472 · 01-24-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condraz23

The existence of God is inherently unknowable.

And by that statement alone all religions are discredited as putting forward a false claim to know god.

If science is not allowed the privilege to say that there is no god, neither is religion by the same token allowed to claim there is one.

tjakey · 01-24-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups

It doesn't appear that the OP was actually interested in a discussion. Perhaps just a personal mission statement.

I suspect he ran home to Mommy complaining that the atheists were mean and trashed his god idea. Mommy probably patted him on the head, gave him a cookie, and said, "There there son, you are a smart little boy and your god idea is really impressive. Pay no attention to those bad, bad atheists. They don't like anybody else's god either."

J-D · 01-24-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condraz23

The existence of God is inherently unknowable. God isn't good or evil. God doesn't send people to heaven or hell. These are all human concepts. God could be zero. God could be infinity. God could be inherently intertwined into the fabric of our universe. When we think of God, we usually think of a humanlike figure who keeps us safe in times of need. An anthropomorphic God. A God that is preoccupied with a mere grain of sand in a vast ocean of galaxies. It is absurd to think that the entire universe was "created" for man. But what "created" the Big Bang? Science can't answer that question. Thus, God represents the unknowable, the incomprehensible, and will forever serve as an epitome of mankind's hopes and dreams.

My beliefs don't fall into any known category, but neither does my God.

People use the word 'God' in different ways. If you want to use the word 'God' to mean what most people mean when they use the word 'zero', nobody can stop you, but the result is sure to be confusion. On the other hand, if you use the words the way most people use them, then it is not true that 'God could be zero'.

spamandham · 01-24-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condraz23

God could be zero. God could be infinity.

i.e., "god" is a meaningless undefined word.

DMC · 01-25-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condraz23

God could be zero. God could be infinity.

i.e., "god" is a meaningless undefined word.

The word god seems more like an adjective than a noun. Adjectives are used to describe nouns. What noun is god used to describe?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2008, 09:53 AM	#11
TacticalLoco Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Madison Wisconsin USA Posts: 1,559	Your god construct is useless.

01-24-2008, 02:00 PM	#12
tjakey Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 1,060	The rest of us are having some fun and along comes TacticalLoco and just shoots 'em right between the eyes...one shot, one kill.

01-24-2008, 02:11 PM	#13
Civil1z@tion Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southeastern US Posts: 6,776	Tell me if I am wrong in this but your God is a god which transcends the universe and science. Thus everything in the universe will have a non-divine cause except for the ultimate creation of the universe which God can be one step behind whatever we find as a cause. God does not intervene in this universe and we just end when we die. All this sounds to me like you are an atheist who hasn't given up the super-being habit. For you, it seems from what you have said, God is merely the first "sufficient" cause for existence and beyond that doesn't really effect us. In reality, your God, just like all the others, is unnecessary. Using Occam's Razor, God is an extra cause which is unnecessary and thus atheism is the more logical position to take. But thanks for sharing.

01-24-2008, 02:18 PM	#14
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	It doesn't appear that the OP was actually interested in a discussion. Perhaps just a personal mission statement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.