God is Great!
God is good is an assumption
Posts
Total:
210
God is Great!
God is Great!
God is Great!
God is Great!
God is Great!
God is Great!
-->
@Mopac
I have someone else to talk to. Go bother someone else. I haven't heard his argument but I have heard yours. I remained unconvinced and if you want to carry on speaking go on but don't expect consistent replies.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You aren't going to be convinced because you have made up your mind and aren't having an honest conversation about the subject.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You very first comment was not about the topic at hand. Stop lying about who was at fault about the derail.
I'm not faulting anyone, or claiming anyone derailed the thread. How can anyone assume God is good if he definitely doesn't exist? Isn't that what you're implying? The first assumption would have to be that god exists. Since you don't think any proof has been provided, why would you want to move beyond that question?
Wouldn't you say that I myself just assume God exists?
Something with science. I'll keep it that open in hopes you can find something. Something with science relates to a credible scientist of present year who has evidence of God's existence or what you can imply God existing with.
That's a very vague answer. What do you mean by science? If a creator could somehow will a universe into existence, even if we don't understand how that can be done, why wouldn't there be a science to willing something into existence just because we don't know how it's done?
If by science you mean, seeing God through an observatory telescope, or concocting evidence in lab test tubes, it's probably not going to happen. Now I know by credible scientist you mean, not a creationist. But assuming you understand that a natural evolutionist/scientist may not necessarily be credible, what exactly is your criteria since credibility can be subjective?
Stare into this microscope and see THE TRUTH.
Insanity.
-->
@RoderickSpode
You mean the genocidal maniac? It's love? pshaaaaaw.
-->
@RoderickSpode
God's are merely man made claims, nothing more.
-->
@RoderickSpode
From the arguments that I have seen from past I concluded that. I am willing to hear a God argument if you have one since that is part of the topic. The love part should have been a question can we talk about God's existence then we talk. I much rather it be formed as a question to talk about a specific aspect of the topic then something else entirely which you hope I understand but if you read my responses from Mopac I didn't.How can anyone assume God is good if he definitely doesn't exist?
The first assumption would have to be that god exists. Since you don't think any proof has been provided, why would you want to move beyond that question?
I should have said that for this topic I'll assume God's existence but not the any specific Religion to be true instead simply God and now you would have to give me an argument or you can speak about how God does existence. Your choice.
Wouldn't you say that I myself just assume God exists?
Maybe you haven't told me.
If a creator could somehow will a universe into existence, even if we don't understand how that can be done, why wouldn't there be a science to willing something into existence just because we don't know how it's done?
If we don't know how it is done how do we know how it is done? Circular yes but that is the very question you are asking. Well I like the stances to be from information gained through professionals in fields so that it is isn't based on my belief more so someone's academic background and researching which led to those answers.
what exactly is your criteria since credibility can be subjective?
The paper has been peer-reviewed. Make sure it as close to the current.
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
@TheRealNihilist
@RoderickSpode
Mopac wrote:The only possible conclusion is that The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is what is meant by God.
I get the first part - I don't think the second part is right, certainly not if 'God' with a capital G refers specifically to the god of the Abrahamic religions.
The nature of reality is a metaphysical puzzle. Mopac's position is that reality (ie all that exists) must have a cause (because 'nothing comes of nothing'). It's not unlike saying the Big Bang must have a cause.
If you accept that reality/the universe must have been caused by something prior then 'the ultimate reality' is a not unreasonable label for that something. As that something is responsible for the existence of 'our reality', it has an attribute associaied with gods - it is the creator and sustainer of the world. In that sense a god 'must' exist.
But Mopac doesn't stop there. Mopac insists it is not a metaphorical god that must exist - what must exist is God, the subject of worship in his preferred version of Christianty. But capital-G God has many attributes not belonging to the UR.
Atheists do not deny the reality of reality, nor that there is (quite possibly) something even more fundamental than the reality we perceive. What we deny is the existence of an entity with the attributes of the Abrahamic god, aka God.
Atheists believe that If there is an 'ultimate reality' that underpins 'ordinary reality' it does not hear or respond to prayers and does not care if people are good or bad. It did not prepare a heaven and hell for dead people. Atheists think the UR is some physical principle that brings reality into being, just as the Higgs field brings mass into being.
Praying to the UR makes no more sense than praying to the Higgs field. If you like, why not call the Higgs field God? Mopac thinks that if he calls reality 'God' then atheists are duty bound to deny it exists!
So is the UR God? No. The UR has some of the features people have traditionally associated with gods, but it is not the God Mopac worships. That God does not exist.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What yhwh demanded most was obedience and what made him angry was worshipping any of the other gods.
Yes "gods" PLURAL which is more than one. At last this god can admit to there being other gods whereas theists believe in there being only one . You have to wonder why that is.
-->
@disgusted
Your posts make no allowance for other's beliefs and yet you demand others show you charity and make allowances for your beliefs, that is hypocritical.
No that is bigotry. Look it up. It is something you should know all about even someone with the mental capacity of a sea sponge knows the difference between what is "hypocritical" & bigotry.
Here you go, I found this in the library for Amoebas
bigotry
/ˈbɪɡətri/
noun
- intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
-->
@keithprosser
This is why you can't understand our theology, you try to understand it without accepting the premises.
The Ultimate Reality is God.
There is no amount of lawyer nonsense that will make atheism anything other than a foolish or badly informed worldview.
Keith is simply doing what every atheist has to do in order to have an argument. They turn God into a conception of God. If they don't do this, they have no argument.
But God is not a conception. God is The Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Stephen
Yes "gods" PLURAL which is more than one. At last this god can admit to there being other gods whereas theists believe in there being only one . You have to wonder why that is.
I'm never quite sure what contet you are working in! Judaism appears to have evolved over time - it was to prevent it evolving any more that it was given a wriiten form. The yhwhist priests were worried it would absorb Babylonian ideas and lose its identity, and with it would go Israelite identity.
The earliest form of Judaism certainly accepted the existence of many gods. Each tribe or city was supposed to have its own 'patron god'. As the well being of the Hebrews depended on the goodwill of their particular god, there was no practical diference between apostsy and treachery.
There were only small steps from YHWH being the Hebrew's patron god to being the best god to being the only god. The technical terms are 'monolatry' (the worship of one god amogst many) and 'monotheism' (belief in one god). My guess is that the Jrews only embraced full-on monotheism during the exile.
-->
@Stephen
Yes I do indeed know the difference that is why I define it correctly, as opposed to the one whose intellect is considerably less than that possessed by a brain damaged garden slug. Go and eat a lettuce.
Demanding tolerance from the one you deny the same tolerance is hypocrisy, that's you.
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.
Prove it. Keith has proven you wrong and you only ever make unsupportable claims.
-->
@Mopac
God is only a concept created by men.Prove me wrong and what you believe is not proof.
-->
@Stephen
What yhwh demanded most was obedience and what made him angry was worshipping any of the other gods.Yes "gods" PLURAL which is more than one. At last this god can admit to there being other gods whereas theists believe in there being only one . You have to wonder why that is.
Why is this @ me?
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
It's not my intention to disprove God's existence but to show that your argument is broken so you will stop repeating it ad nauseam! I realise that is a follorn hope, but I've nothing better to do right now.
If you ever change your avatar, I suggest you consider this.
-->
@keithprosser
Your aversion to reality does not negate it.
-->
@keithprosser
We can't actually have a real debate because in continuing to dispute over the meanings of words, you are refusing to engage in the subject matter.
That is why this is what you get.
-->
@Mopac
Your aversion to reality does not negate it.
Rather than trade accusations, would you care to wager which of us DA members think has the better grasp of reality?
-->
@keithprosser
If you are not accepting what is meant by "God", you are doing as I say. These are not baseless accusations.
Then, not accepting what it is we mean, you go on to try to figure out our theology without accepting the basic fundamental.
The fact that you think you can understand us this way is patently delusional.
If you are not accepting what is meant by "God", you are doing as I say. These are not baseless accusations.
What do I think is meant by 'God'?
I wrote
Atheists believe that If there is an 'ultimate reality' that underpins 'ordinary reality' it does not hear or respond to prayers and does not care if people are good or bad. It did not prepare a heaven and hell for dead people.
I would be interested to know what you think is meant by God (with a capital G).
If it means 'that which underpins reality' then I don't deny it. If it means the entity describedin the Christian Bible - which is much more than an underpinning of reality - then I do deny it exists and your 'ultimate reality' argument does nothing to help you.