Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God does not exist (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 453 posts in this discussion
Posted on 20 Jan 2013 02:59:25 GMT
Spin says:
"god" does not value your own love of yourself...

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 15:40:48 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2013 15:41:40 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jan 2013 18:02:25 GMT
Bellatori says:
In my case, good education plus not much else to do on Sunday but sing in a church choir and chat up the girl choristers!!

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 04:59:04 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 07:44:04 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Spin - neither do i believe in fairies, so should I study all aspects of fairydom in order to back up my arguments against their existence? To an atheist, religion is a spiritual issue where one has chosen not to put their faith in a deity. Biblical studies and church history etc, only support this belief to those who already believe. They don't prove the existence of a deity.

Posted on 30 Jan 2013 08:17:46 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Feb 2013 01:49:28 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:19:03 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin, that is because you deliberately try to link science (which is based on evidence and proven experiment) with religion ( which is based on mumbo jumbo) when you realise that they are different you might spot why a degree in theology (which rarely seeems to focus on Egyptian or Incan gods- but gets stuck on the Abrahamic one) is just naval gazing.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:20:29 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Are you the author?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:30:49 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:34:44 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:35:23 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin- I'm therefore delighted that you believe in invisible pink unicorns.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 08:46:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jan 2013 08:47:52 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 09:20:42 GMT
Drew Jones says:
No sophisticated thinker should doubt invisible pink unicorns until they have fully read up on the arguments for invisibility. A person excludes themselves from the debate if they have not studied the hues and tones that the term 'pink' can cover and fully understand the values and differences between the fuchsia argument and magenta dilemma. Arguing against the idea of horses with horns on farting rainbows which has more in common with My Little Pony than modern Unicornology is futile since things have moved on a lot since those ideas were popular. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies and he was smart.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 10:24:40 GMT
Bellatori says:
Hi Spin... "one cannot simply refute a scientific theory based on personal "belief". "

Nor, as you point out can one dismiss a religion purely on belief either. The statement "God exists" or "God does not exist" are just that. Statements. They are not intrinsically provable (ignoring Gödel here!). It is when someone states 'God exists because...' that we end up in a 'discussion'. At which point, because a premise is being stated, the 'scientific' methodology swings in to action. I do not need to know the ins and outs of a particular religion to investigate 'God answers prayers' or 'God carries out miracles'. Stating, for example, God is omniscient and then stating God gives us free will can be shown to be logically contradictory. Not that that necessarily causes problems as most religions have built in contradictions. We are not actually having a theological discussion most of the time (ethics etc..) we are usually talking about reality, existence, evidence etc... which are in the domain of science.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 12:50:13 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: nut, for instance if you object to the statement "god is omsniscient" you must be sure what definition of the terms "god" and "omiscience" you are objecting to. The person proposing the statement may be expressing it with a completely different conception of "God" and "omniscience" than yours. Thus it is necessary to research the doctrine and the terms used by the discipline you are objecting to. The same is true of theists; to object to science they must frst understand the literature, terms and research they are objecting to. Otherwise debate is pointless, being merely a conversation between two people who each believe they are right.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 13:23:47 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin- unicorns are omnipotent and omnipresent. There you go- evidence as requested.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 13:25:09 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"But it cannot prove the non-existence of any kind of deity."

You seem to think this a problem. Can you disprove the existence of blerlq Spin? If you cannot disprove the existenece of blerlq then i thnk you should believe in the existenece of blerlq. (It's a non-sensical proposition.)

-"As a science, in order to prove or in this case disprove a theory one must research the topic, gather as much info as you can and then proceed to verify or falsify a proposition."

Let me ask you a question; are deities falsifiable? If not, why would you consider this approach valid?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 13:27:41 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

A scientific theory is a well defined idea backed up by a large amount of supporting evidence. Religions on the other hand cover a whole range of beliefs (even within one religion) with little or no evidence to support them. I would agree that science cannot disprove the existence of a god, but is would suggest it is up to those who claim that a god exists to provide evidence. When in the 1960's Peter Higgs and others who worked on the idea of a Higgs field did not turn round to the rest of the scientific community and say, well you can't prove there is no Higgs Boson, they waited patiently until the technology was available to test for the Higgs boson and then they proved their case.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jan 2013 20:28:11 GMT
Bellatori says:
Hmmm. Spin.... that becomes a discussion in semantics. I generally find that when people start to hide behind semantic quibbles the argument is already lost.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 05:53:54 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 11:58:59 GMT
Bellatori says:
Omniscient means 'All (omni) knowledge (scientia)'

Now if you know everything you can do the one thing we cannot which is predict the future absolutely. You would know the mass and the position of every particle and from that predict exactly where they will be in the next instant. Understanding at that depth would enable you to predict the behaviour of complex systems e.g. the human brain etc... etc...

Everything is therefore predetermined and preordained.

It is why I have argues that the reason we appear to have free will is the complexity of such systems inside us mean that we cannot predict. God in his omniscience can.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 12:36:12 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: Indeed.. But I argued with another poster, who argued that God was both omniscient and omnipotent, that if a deity was omnsicient, he/she/it could not be omnipotent. And if the deity was omnipotent, it could not be omniscient. That is, omniscience, knowing all, means no action, mental or physical, is required, and omnipotence, being all-powerful, does not require knowledge of anything (since one has the power to do, think or create whatever one wants or desires.) The logical conclusion is that if God is omniscient, he is not omnipotent, and vice versa. Changing the definition of these terms only adds to the confusion, for one can redefine terms ad infinitum without ever arriving at the truth. This is why theists are constantly accused of not being interested in the truth, except that defined by themselves or thier church.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 17:29:58 GMT
"Now if you know everything you can do the one thing we cannot which is predict the future absolutely."

Not necessarily - this assumes that the future is pre-existent - if it is not then it cannot be known and an omniscient being wouldn't 'know' it.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 17:53:55 GMT
J. Forbes says:
I think you misunderstood, Mr B.

An omniscient being, by knowing everything, will be able to predict exactly how even relatively complex systems (like a human brain) will respond to any scenario, and therefore will be able to predict the future perfectly. All the unknowns (to you and me) will be known to this superior being. He will have no unknown knowns, and not even any unknown unknowns (what a plonker that Rumsfeld is!).

Or are you saying there are limits to God's omniscience?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
153 27 Aug 2014
Has Curiosity now found oroof of Life in Mars? 19 1 hour ago
Why is AMAZON deleting posts and MANGLING the forum? 158 2 hours ago
guilty until proven innocent. 29 2 hours ago
A Challenge to Atheists: What is your Coherent View or Vision of Reality... without Almighty God? (2) 4980 2 hours ago
Egyptian gets 3 years jail for saying he is atheist and for "insulting Islam" 38 2 hours ago
Je suis Charlie 403 3 hours ago
There is no God,it's purely a myth 218 3 hours ago
Church Of The Poisoned Mind 168 4 hours ago
Notable Bible Verses 28 6 hours ago
would we be better off out of the eu? 14 6 hours ago
How different would the world be if Gnostic Christianity had been the dominant force, not the Catholic church. 142 16 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  48
Total posts:  453
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  30 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions