RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why god cannot possibly be real
Author Message
The Apathy Offline
Pariah

Posts: 727
Joined: Jan 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 6 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #121
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

liq3 Wrote:You should take the same advice darthmat. Trying to argue something you barley know anything about. :/

I second that.

Who am I? That is irrelevant.
What am I here for? That will become apparent.
You can call me Apathy!
11-15-2008 01:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mudkip liek Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,286
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 10 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Post: #122
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Something_Spacey Wrote:
liq3 Wrote:You should take the same advice darthmat. Trying to argue something you barley know anything about. :/

I second that.

I un-second that and un-first the other.

Subjective reality = BULLSHIT

Oh and, Something_Spacey, I don't like you. Just thought you should know.
11-15-2008 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Apathy Offline
Pariah

Posts: 727
Joined: Jan 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 6 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #123
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

chemistry_hater Wrote:Oh and, Something_Spacey, I don't like you. Just thought you should know.
huh?, You realise I hardly know anything about you so I really could care less.

I still think there are many contradictions in the Bible. When it says stuff like "a man must burden 'only' his own sin" then two chapters later it says something like "We must help our neighbor burden his sin". How does one interpret stuff like that without being called a blasphemer?

Who am I? That is irrelevant.
What am I here for? That will become apparent.
You can call me Apathy!
11-15-2008 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #124
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Find me this passage and I will try to explain
11-15-2008 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mudkip liek Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,286
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 10 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Post: #125
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Quote:huh?, You realise I hardly know anything about you so I really could care less.

Could care less? So that means you care.

I think you meant couldn't care less.

Oh, and it's REALIZE.
11-15-2008 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Apathy Offline
Pariah

Posts: 727
Joined: Jan 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 6 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #126
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Jonno Wrote:Find me this passage and I will try to explain

Here are two examples.


Quote:
Quote:Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)


Quote:"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18:
Quote:
Quote:"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]
Quote:"The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." [Is 40:28]

Who am I? That is irrelevant.
What am I here for? That will become apparent.
You can call me Apathy!
11-15-2008 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mudkip liek Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,286
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 10 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Post: #127
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Oh, giving me the silent treatment. Ok, lol. Biggrin
11-15-2008 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #128
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Gen 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

It was a question. She was referring to the angel.

In your second point, the second verse is telling how infinite god is. But an infinite god can still rest. He doesn't have to, but he can.
11-15-2008 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
liq3 Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 16 post(s)
Post: #129
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Jonno Wrote:In your second point, the second verse is telling how infinite god is. But an infinite god can still rest. He doesn't have to, but he can.
But he can't be refreshed. Razz

Epic win book.
Personal Development for Smart People.
11-15-2008 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
liq3 Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 16 post(s)
Post: #130
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

chemistry_hater Wrote:
Something_Spacey Wrote:
liq3 Wrote:You should take the same advice darthmat. Trying to argue something you barley know anything about. :/

I second that.

I un-second that and un-first the other.

Subjective reality = BULLSHIT
NO U!

Epic win book.
Personal Development for Smart People.
11-15-2008 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #131
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Why can't he be refreshed? In the way that it describes it, refreshness is an emotion, and God is capable of emotion.
11-15-2008 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
liq3 Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 16 post(s)
Post: #132
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Jonno Wrote:Why can't he be refreshed? In the way that it describes it, refreshness is an emotion, and God is capable of emotion.
Because being refreshed is NOT an emotion. Yes, there is an emotional feeling of "refreshed".

Also, let me say something else. Perfect beings do not feel emotion (at least not in any unbalanced way), since if they did, they would not be perfect.

It's quite simply impossible for God to be perfect, and the Bible to be correct.

Epic win book.
Personal Development for Smart People.
11-15-2008 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Apathy Offline
Pariah

Posts: 727
Joined: Jan 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 6 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #133
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Once again, can god be seen? yes or no. I'm not sure which to believe.

Quote:
Quote:"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
Quote:"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

Quote:
Quote:"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
Quote:"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Who am I? That is irrelevant.
What am I here for? That will become apparent.
You can call me Apathy!
11-15-2008 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #134
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

God can manifest himself physically, but not all of himself. This would destroy the universe. So no-one has seen God in full glory, but people have seen physical manifestations of him.
11-15-2008 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mudkip liek Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,286
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 10 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Post: #135
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Quote:NO U!

[sarcasm]I'm so offended.[/sarcasm]
11-16-2008 03:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheDelinquent Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #136
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Something I wrote as a beginning of the personal justification of my world view - this first part deals with metaphysics.

Things can be divided into two categories, that which has come together to comprise life, and that which life has come together to comprise. The exact mechanism by which matter and energy have come together to comprise life is unknown, but we can sense with all our faculties that they are, currently, together. Even if all the information those faculties afforded us which pertained to that which we do not directly control did not elucidate this axiom, the faculties afford us at least the assurance of themselves. An ear does not have to detect the sound of hooves against cobblestone to ascertain it’s own existance, merely the presence of sound against itself. Likewise, an eye may see many differing things, but all those things it has seen. Things can appear different, but only once they appear.
A comprehension of the cosmos occurs in the identification of similarities, which are the basis of a pattern susceptible to being perceived or explained. So this is the first and most apparent divide to me, the one I have determined to lie behind many, if not every, supposed disagreement among humen: the divide between the artificial and the existent. One segment of humen suppose the former preceded the later, the remaining (smaller) segment suppose the later preceded (and still precedes) the former.
The first segment of the population we call theologians, the second segment, atheologians. Theologians believe multilaterally, depending upon which subgrouping they identify themselves with or as, that there is a person who is at the origin of every other thing that exists. This person, whom they refuse to call a man for fear of offending or disservicing him/her, has wants, needs, pleasures, and pains like any man. He or she (usually he, oddly enough) designed and developed the entirety of the universe at their whim, taking an increment of time out of their infinite life span to do so, then taking the next immediate increment of time in their never-ending life to rest. This person, they say, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He has, in all popular depictions, a face like a man’s, hands like a man’s, and a frame like a man’s. In all the (mutually contradictory) histories of his exploits, he experiences a wide range of MANLY emotions, like rage:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.”
- Numbers 25:4, The Bible

And grief:

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
- Genesis 6:6, The Bible

But these do not warrant bestowing the status of manhood upon such a person, argue the theologians. Manly emotions, manly physical features, manly means of communication with other men, all of these things are inconsequential in light of the intrinsic prerequisites of manliness. The first frequently offered prerequisite? Mortality.
But all creatures, even beyond man, die. We wouldn’t call a skunk a man for it’s mortality, we would simply call it mortal. Even beyond this obvious attempt to conflate manliness and death, there are references in numerous theological accounts to a time when men were not mortal, but existed immortally under the grace of the “original” person.
Once this excuse for the original’s exclusion from manhood is dismissed, a series of others arise to take it’s place, all exploiting some aspect of this supposed original person that men do not share.
Omnipotence is what disqualifies the original for manhood, say the theologians.
This just redefines manhood as a degree of weakness.
Others claim it is omniscience that separates humen from the original person.
This succeeds in measuring manhood as stupidity.
Omnipresence then, is what does it.
But this is an extension of what the claim for omnipotence has already achieved.
Omnibenevolence? Surely the original must be purely good, or we wouldn’t go so blatantly far as to name him GOD, one letter less of his defining trait.
Again, an attempt to frame every earthly action in terms of it’s fault.
The theologians have backed themselves into a conceptual corner. By defining God as the perfection, the constancy, and the unwavering absolute of a series of traits, they have simultaneously derided (indeed, defined) humen as inconsistent indecisiveness, and locked their God into a cage from which he cannot possibly escape. Every one of God’s reputed actions must be consistent with his legacy. If they aren’t, then he is not really God, or we are simply mistaken (as a result of our “limited human understanding”, which itself is a result of conceiving manliness as nothing more than our inability to conceive omnisciently).
Without mortal, bad, stupid, weak, and tiny hypothetical humen to provide contrast, God is a hypothetical man. And without an immortal, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent hypothetical God to provide conflict, humen are Gods.
The theologian has made it their mission to eliminate death, badness, stupidity, weakness, and smallness by making God and Man antonyms. The atheologian has made it their mission to eliminate stupidity, which entails making God and Man synonyms. The theologian’s goal is paradisaical, the atheologian’s, practical.
But at the root of these two contradicting philosophies, lies the same eternal question: Which came first, the artificial or the existent?

To answer this question properly, a person must conceptually distinguish creation and invention. All the most intuitively popular arguments for God are the distending of an analogy. It usually goes a little something like this:
“See that automobile? It is intricately complex. Man made it. See that man? He is even more complex than the automobile. God must have made it.”
The analogy is that God is to man what man is to car, to put it simply.
But this ignores the empirical data at all of our fingertips. God did not make any individual man, that individual’s parents did. When we copulate, incubate, and birth a new carrier of variant parent DNA, we are engaging in a process of unconscious invention. To say that we possess any creative power, even in this instance, is to demean creativity. To create is to add something new, to get something from nothing, which violates every modern foundation of physics. All life is inventive, man’s life just happens to depend upon conscious invention more than most other animal life does. If we had not invented houses, we’d have insufficient shelter against a harsh winter. If we hadn’t invented airplanes, we wouldn’t be able to fly around the Earth in a matter of hours. If we hadn’t invented automobiles, we wouldn’t be able to labor at a place tens of miles further from where we laze.
Humen ensure their survival, individually and collectively, through conscious manipulation of their environment – invention. Reorganization of molecules, atoms, and compounds already in existance, helpless to prevent their destinies as whatever role they play in each organism’s subjective drama. And given that these organisms themselves are replicative organizations of molecules, atoms, and compounds, void is the hypothesis that an organism is at the root of existance when it is taken as granted that some sort of existance was necessary for that organism in the first place!
So was devised the rift between the “natural” and the “supernatural”.
The natural occurrences of replicative organizations need a cause, so let us speculate upon the existance of a “second reality” – by which the first instances (and only the first instances, lest we ignore the causal link between modern fathers and sons) of these organizations were deposited into the cosmos of our perception by a cosmos outside of our perception (or one of it’s denizens).
At this point the theologian’s task is threefold. Firstly, to prove the existance of (or even provide the slightest hint of evidence for) their conjectural second reality. Secondly, to prove that there exists within that reality the organism they submit begot humen’s greatest great-grandfather. And thirdly, what is to be considered the most difficult task of them all, to prove that organism guilty as charged in the scientific court of law.
For it is not enough to prove the existance of a God-like entity, a theologian must also prove God’s culpability in having generated the humen that are sexually responsible for our multiplicity. God is not just a name for an imaginary organism, but an imaginary organism who performed a very specific imaginary action.
I submit that after waiting thousands of years this prolific prophet, who has yet to arrive and complete their threefold task, we can be justified in asserting that there is no God with as much inductive assurance as we are in asserting there is gravity.
When we say there is gravity, we say that up until the point in time of our saying it, points of mass exert an attractive force upon one another inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. As long as this holds generally accurate, pragmatically correct, it is considered “true”. If and when observation deviates from this theory, the theory loses trueness, and becomes false or incomplete.
So, being that God has been speciously defined in all instances, and when defined, remains repeatedly unobserved, it is true that God exists only in the mind – or that God is imaginary. Those who would attempt to take from this stance an accusation that God exists, but only cognitively, be my guest. You have completely changed your definition of God in the process.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
11-23-2008 03:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Liquid Offline
poison - do not drink

Posts: 1,050
Joined: Aug 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #137
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

TheDelinquent Wrote:Something I wrote as a beginning of the personal justification of my world view - this first part deals with metaphysics.

Things can be divided into two categories, that which has come together to comprise life, and that which life has come together to comprise. The exact mechanism by which matter and energy have come together to comprise life is unknown, but we can sense with all our faculties that they are, currently, together. Even if all the information those faculties afforded us which pertained to that which we do not directly control did not elucidate this axiom, the faculties afford us at least the assurance of themselves. An ear does not have to detect the sound of hooves against cobblestone to ascertain it’s own existance, merely the presence of sound against itself. Likewise, an eye may see many differing things, but all those things it has seen. Things can appear different, but only once they appear.
A comprehension of the cosmos occurs in the identification of similarities, which are the basis of a pattern susceptible to being perceived or explained. So this is the first and most apparent divide to me, the one I have determined to lie behind many, if not every, supposed disagreement among humen: the divide between the artificial and the existent. One segment of humen suppose the former preceded the later, the remaining (smaller) segment suppose the later preceded (and still precedes) the former.
The first segment of the population we call theologians, the second segment, atheologians. Theologians believe multilaterally, depending upon which subgrouping they identify themselves with or as, that there is a person who is at the origin of every other thing that exists. This person, whom they refuse to call a man for fear of offending or disservicing him/her, has wants, needs, pleasures, and pains like any man. He or she (usually he, oddly enough) designed and developed the entirety of the universe at their whim, taking an increment of time out of their infinite life span to do so, then taking the next immediate increment of time in their never-ending life to rest. This person, they say, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He has, in all popular depictions, a face like a man’s, hands like a man’s, and a frame like a man’s. In all the (mutually contradictory) histories of his exploits, he experiences a wide range of MANLY emotions, like rage:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.”
- Numbers 25:4, The Bible

And grief:

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
- Genesis 6:6, The Bible

But these do not warrant bestowing the status of manhood upon such a person, argue the theologians. Manly emotions, manly physical features, manly means of communication with other men, all of these things are inconsequential in light of the intrinsic prerequisites of manliness. The first frequently offered prerequisite? Mortality.
But all creatures, even beyond man, die. We wouldn’t call a skunk a man for it’s mortality, we would simply call it mortal. Even beyond this obvious attempt to conflate manliness and death, there are references in numerous theological accounts to a time when men were not mortal, but existed immortally under the grace of the “original” person.
Once this excuse for the original’s exclusion from manhood is dismissed, a series of others arise to take it’s place, all exploiting some aspect of this supposed original person that men do not share.
Omnipotence is what disqualifies the original for manhood, say the theologians.
This just redefines manhood as a degree of weakness.
Others claim it is omniscience that separates humen from the original person.
This succeeds in measuring manhood as stupidity.
Omnipresence then, is what does it.
But this is an extension of what the claim for omnipotence has already achieved.
Omnibenevolence? Surely the original must be purely good, or we wouldn’t go so blatantly far as to name him GOD, one letter less of his defining trait.
Again, an attempt to frame every earthly action in terms of it’s fault.
The theologians have backed themselves into a conceptual corner. By defining God as the perfection, the constancy, and the unwavering absolute of a series of traits, they have simultaneously derided (indeed, defined) humen as inconsistent indecisiveness, and locked their God into a cage from which he cannot possibly escape. Every one of God’s reputed actions must be consistent with his legacy. If they aren’t, then he is not really God, or we are simply mistaken (as a result of our “limited human understanding”, which itself is a result of conceiving manliness as nothing more than our inability to conceive omnisciently).
Without mortal, bad, stupid, weak, and tiny hypothetical humen to provide contrast, God is a hypothetical man. And without an immortal, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent hypothetical God to provide conflict, humen are Gods.
The theologian has made it their mission to eliminate death, badness, stupidity, weakness, and smallness by making God and Man antonyms. The atheologian has made it their mission to eliminate stupidity, which entails making God and Man synonyms. The theologian’s goal is paradisaical, the atheologian’s, practical.
But at the root of these two contradicting philosophies, lies the same eternal question: Which came first, the artificial or the existent?

To answer this question properly, a person must conceptually distinguish creation and invention. All the most intuitively popular arguments for God are the distending of an analogy. It usually goes a little something like this:
“See that automobile? It is intricately complex. Man made it. See that man? He is even more complex than the automobile. God must have made it.”
The analogy is that God is to man what man is to car, to put it simply.
But this ignores the empirical data at all of our fingertips. God did not make any individual man, that individual’s parents did. When we copulate, incubate, and birth a new carrier of variant parent DNA, we are engaging in a process of unconscious invention. To say that we possess any creative power, even in this instance, is to demean creativity. To create is to add something new, to get something from nothing, which violates every modern foundation of physics. All life is inventive, man’s life just happens to depend upon conscious invention more than most other animal life does. If we had not invented houses, we’d have insufficient shelter against a harsh winter. If we hadn’t invented airplanes, we wouldn’t be able to fly around the Earth in a matter of hours. If we hadn’t invented automobiles, we wouldn’t be able to labor at a place tens of miles further from where we laze.
Humen ensure their survival, individually and collectively, through conscious manipulation of their environment – invention. Reorganization of molecules, atoms, and compounds already in existance, helpless to prevent their destinies as whatever role they play in each organism’s subjective drama. And given that these organisms themselves are replicative organizations of molecules, atoms, and compounds, void is the hypothesis that an organism is at the root of existance when it is taken as granted that some sort of existance was necessary for that organism in the first place!
So was devised the rift between the “natural” and the “supernatural”.
The natural occurrences of replicative organizations need a cause, so let us speculate upon the existance of a “second reality” – by which the first instances (and only the first instances, lest we ignore the causal link between modern fathers and sons) of these organizations were deposited into the cosmos of our perception by a cosmos outside of our perception (or one of it’s denizens).
At this point the theologian’s task is threefold. Firstly, to prove the existance of (or even provide the slightest hint of evidence for) their conjectural second reality. Secondly, to prove that there exists within that reality the organism they submit begot humen’s greatest great-grandfather. And thirdly, what is to be considered the most difficult task of them all, to prove that organism guilty as charged in the scientific court of law.
For it is not enough to prove the existance of a God-like entity, a theologian must also prove God’s culpability in having generated the humen that are sexually responsible for our multiplicity. God is not just a name for an imaginary organism, but an imaginary organism who performed a very specific imaginary action.
I submit that after waiting thousands of years this prolific prophet, who has yet to arrive and complete their threefold task, we can be justified in asserting that there is no God with as much inductive assurance as we are in asserting there is gravity.
When we say there is gravity, we say that up until the point in time of our saying it, points of mass exert an attractive force upon one another inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. As long as this holds generally accurate, pragmatically correct, it is considered “true”. If and when observation deviates from this theory, the theory loses trueness, and becomes false or incomplete.
So, being that God has been speciously defined in all instances, and when defined, remains repeatedly unobserved, it is true that God exists only in the mind – or that God is imaginary. Those who would attempt to take from this stance an accusation that God exists, but only cognitively, be my guest. You have completely changed your definition of God in the process.

In no particular order...

You say that God has always remained unobserved, how can you be sure of that though?

How can you know that no one has EVER observed Him? Can you be sure?

What if God took on Human form, lived with man for 33 years, died, and rose from the dead?

What do you have against the idea of God revealing Himself anthropomorphically? In man-like form.

Why should God not have feelings? Does being perfect mean not having any emotions?

If a theory is shown to be false, it was false all along, it doesn't turn false at that time.

Gravity is a contraction of spacetime.

God remains the same, even having emotions and doing things. Does a computer program, ex: MS Word, change because you are typing text in? Or does a computer game change because you are playing it at the time? Look at the program's source code, any change?

Are you saying that if God is proven to be real, but if the fact that God created man can't be proven, then that proves that God isn't real? That's what it looks like...

There can't be a 2nd reality, either something is real or it isn't.

//

[Image: techhoops5.jpg]
12-05-2008 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
liq3 Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 16 post(s)
Post: #138
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Liquid Wrote:Does being perfect mean not having any emotions?
Being perfect means having infinite emotion. It also means having infinite control of those emotions. Being perfect means nothing is out of your reach. You can do anything, you have done everything.
Liquid Wrote:There can't be a 2nd reality, either something is real or it isn't.
Depends on what you mean by "reality". If, you go by this* meaning, then yes, there is only one reality.

*"the state of things as they actually exist".

Epic win book.
Personal Development for Smart People.
12-05-2008 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lonehwolf Offline
Rebel

Posts: 20
Joined: Dec 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #139
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Hmm, you know, I love religion because it gave birth to people like him

I mean, just listen to it, if god made this, I "love him too" =o

Don't mean to rush in and say god doesn't exist, but really, back in the days when they thought rain was pee from god, they associated everything to this being. Let's say god exists, but thinking jesus touched this place, it really just fucks up the whole "divine thing"... if god's son died, and humans still turned out like this, all I can say would be nothing Sleep Sleep Sleep

Boring talk, I really got over these discussions. Atheists look at religious people as stupid beings, and religious people look at atheists as arrogant beings.

Does it lead anywhere? Believe what you want, and let others do the same =o
12-09-2008 06:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sanjuro Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,055
Joined: Mar 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #140
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Church benches are hard and cold!!!

Napalm Sticks To Kids
01-07-2009 11:43 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #141
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

That's why my church has chairs.
01-07-2009 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sanjuro Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,055
Joined: Mar 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #142
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

i wasnt talking about chairs

Napalm Sticks To Kids
01-11-2009 12:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #143
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

You were talking about benches. I agree that they are horrible, and so does my church. Chairs are better.
01-11-2009 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Milk2Go Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,430
Joined: Dec 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 41 thank(s) in 29 post(s)
Post: #144
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

I've never gone to a single church in my life. Ever. I've never even been to one for a wedding.
01-11-2009 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
liq3 Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Mar 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 16 post(s)
Post: #145
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

lol @ how the argument has turned into "chairs > bunches".

Epic win book.
Personal Development for Smart People.
01-11-2009 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #146
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

There is no argument. We all agree.
01-11-2009 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gobinu Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 283
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #147
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Arguments about religion usually ends up like this. After all it is all about what do you BELIEVE in...

http://gobinu.deviantart.com/ (trying to make it busy).
01-11-2009 09:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sanjuro Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,055
Joined: Mar 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 2 thank(s) in 2 post(s)
Post: #148
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

Amen...

Napalm Sticks To Kids
01-12-2009 03:10 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
classclown Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,784
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 7 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Post: #149
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

ok i am raised catholic but yea i dont like it which drives my parents crazy but anyways i think any form of religion is wrong cause its conforming everyone to one idea its limiting the thought of mankind

and yea im new at this and dont know how to quote but in the original post it says somethin like forget gods rules except like murder and stealing you forgot rape

life is just blah blah blah. we hope for blah, and sometimes we find it. but mostly its blah. and waiting for blah. and hoping you were right about the blahs you made. and when you think you just got the whole blah damn thing figured out, and your surrounded by the ones you blah. death shows up and blah blah blah.
-weeds-

Death may be the greatest of all human blessings. -socrates-

Schooling us to prepare us for the career in need
Not caring about our interests and dreams to heed
01-15-2009 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nah Offline
Pariah

Posts: 890
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 4 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #150
Re: Why god cannot possibly be real

I agree, that conforming everyone to one un-challenged idea is wrong. Always challenge your beliefs. You will either prove them wrong, or you will increase your faith in what is right.

Catholicism is interesting, because it teaches that you can be good enough to get into heaven. To back yourself up against your parents, you can quote Ephesians 2:8

Quote:For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
01-15-2009 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication