Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are mine and they are consistent with what we know about our Reality (God). They also are based on positive evidence that exceeds any negative evidence which you deniers claim as default.
You haven’t actually provided any positive evidence.
The fact that you seem to think that negative evidence is required to refute unsupported claims is sufficient proof to show that you don’t know how logic works.
As usual, you reveal a lack of awareness of the issues. The EXISTENCE of God is positively evidenced by the existence of our Reality and everything else. You pretend that being the basis for the existence, maintenance, and control of everything through immutable laws is NOT Godlike but you offer no evidence or rationale for why that would be true. That is the negative evidence that is needed to refute the positive evidence of existence.
Sorry , your opinion is irrelevant. My analogy stands, unrebutted by you . Nobody debates aliens much because there is not a widespread belief in the existence of aliens to debate , and no one tries to force the belief in aliens upon society . Atheism is just non belief . The fact that a few are forceful in their argument against religion because theists have traditionally tried to force it upon society at large doesn't somehow make their non belief a doctrine, which was the debate . Your opinion or your psychological need for it to be a religion doesn't alter that any .
It is not just my opinion.
The government has even determined that Atheism is a Religion. PRAISE NOGODAH!
The government has also determined that "The Bible is the Word of God". That's the law, even.
As usual, you reveal a lack of awareness of the issues. The EXISTENCE of God is positively evidenced by the existence of our Reality and everything else. You pretend that being the basis for the existence, maintenance, and control of everything through immutable laws is NOT Godlike but you offer no evidence or rationale for why that would be true. That is the negative evidence that is needed to refute the positive evidence of existence.
I have asked you on multiple occasions to address your god claim. Let me repeat.
If your god is exactly synonymous with the universe, why bother using the term god? Why not simply use the term universe, or perhaps reality.
On the other hand, if your god is in some way different from the universe, either greater or lesser, please define what that difference is, and provide some evidence supporting your claims.
In this post, you also claim that the universe must be maintained and controlled, yet once again you fail to recognize, or dishonestly ignore, the fact that these are unsupported claims.
We agree on existence. The difference is you claim things not in evidence beyond existence, but you provide no proof. I don’t claim anything beyond existence, so I don’t need to provide proof, much less this negative evidence concept you seem to have dreamt up over the weekend.
I have asked you on multiple occasions to address your god claim. Let me repeat.
If your god is exactly synonymous with the universe, why bother using the term god? Why not simply use the term universe, or perhaps reality.
Because the term universe or nature was created as an abreaction by the early scientists to the authoritarian persecution by religious institutions when they were originally investigating God. The point remains that the status and stature of our Reality is beyond the minimal attributes for God.
Quote:
On the other hand, if your god is in some way different from the universe, either greater or lesser, please define what that difference is, and provide some evidence supporting your claims.
In this post, you also claim that the universe must be maintained and controlled, yet once again you fail to recognize, or dishonestly ignore, the fact that these are unsupported claims.
Why would it need to be different from the universe thereby negating my assertion that it IS God. It is, AT MINIMUM, our God as its existence is the basis for our existence and the existence of everything else. Its immutable laws maintain, govern, and control everything. How is that an unsupported claim? Hard to be more of a God than that. We can debate what OTHER attributes God has, but those are de minimus and sufficient to support the EXISTENCE of God.
Quote:
We agree on existence. The difference is you claim things not in evidence beyond existence, but you provide no proof. I don’t claim anything beyond existence, so I don’t need to provide proof, much less this negative evidence concept you seem to have dreamt up over the weekend.
I support the existence of God as stated using existing evidence and you seem to agree. I believe the existence of our consciousness mandates that the God that establishes our consciousness must be conscious. You can disagree that our consciousness is evidence of that attribute, but that is a tenuous objection since God IS everything including our consciousness.
I have asked you on multiple occasions to address your god claim. Let me repeat.
If your god is exactly synonymous with the universe, why bother using the term god? Why not simply use the term universe, or perhaps reality.
On the other hand, if your god is in some way different from the universe, either greater or lesser, please define what that difference is, and provide some evidence supporting your claims.
In this post, you also claim that the universe must be maintained and controlled, yet once again you fail to recognize, or dishonestly ignore, the fact that these are unsupported claims.
We agree on existence. The difference is you claim things not in evidence beyond existence, but you provide no proof. I don’t claim anything beyond existence, so I don’t need to provide proof, much less this negative evidence concept you seem to have dreamt up over the weekend.
The Universe IS God.
We KNOW:
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100%
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment.
We DO KNOW that the ENERGY/MATTER that DOES IN FACT EXIST...rearranges itself so as to create all Reality, and can do this through indigenous power, without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created by and through "laws" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains or eliminates that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a "God".
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN, EXISTING ENERGY/MATTER...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining, and eliminating happened out of what some believe to be "chaos", and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this ENERGY/MATTER was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it DOES EXIST...AND...by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by refusing to acknowledge the merited title, and insisting that the only reference is by name only ("Nature", "The Universe", etc) to identify that which has been shown to be, by known attributes and definition, a "God" entity....some then turn around and deny the existence of GOD.
No matter..."GOD" by any name is still "GOD".
...
We KNOW:
...
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100% No, we don't know that there is such knowledge.
...
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100% You make it sounds like it thinks. We don't know that at all.
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100% This sounds like something from "2001: A Space Odyssey"
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity. No, please don't go on with these wild suppositions for which you have no evidence.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this. Because they have no evidence. Just more story telling.
...
...
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for. No, this is baloney.
Or bologna. Whichever you prefer.
...You people are like Steven Spielburg without any self-control. You just make stuff up. That's called FICTION.
It is not just my opinion.
The government has even determined that Atheism is a Religion. PRAISE NOGODAH!
The government has also determined that "The Bible is the Word of God". That's the law, even.
You have been told this before - the Government has ruled that atheists have the same rights in Law as the religious. It is treated the same as if it was a religion - which it is not. Yet again, is it your ignorance or your deceit? You tell us.
I have asked you on multiple occasions to address your god claim. Let me repeat.
If your god is exactly synonymous with the universe, why bother using the term god? Why not simply use the term universe, or perhaps reality.
On the other hand, if your god is in some way different from the universe, either greater or lesser, please define what that difference is, and provide some evidence supporting your claims.
In this post, you also claim that the universe must be maintained and controlled, yet once again you fail to recognize, or dishonestly ignore, the fact that these are unsupported claims.
We agree on existence. The difference is you claim things not in evidence beyond existence, but you provide no proof. I don’t claim anything beyond existence, so I don’t need to provide proof, much less this negative evidence concept you seem to have dreamt up over the weekend.
I'll try to leave these two to you. I really don't want to be pulled into yet another thread -derail with refuting Mystic's wilfully ignorant (really- he doesn't know that Philosophy cannot prove anything to be reliable fact and it is science that has to do that?) assertions and Goldnrule's ego-serving winding up of atheists.
But..."please define what that difference is, and provide some evidence supporting your claims." Both of them know what this is. It is Intelligence. The Cosmos has to be intelligent to be "God" is any sense other than a semantic swindle. Mystic admits this and tries to fiddle the claim into his theory. He really does try. Goldie simply cheats. It's a wind -up. I don't believe that he believes this 'everything of God theory or regards Mystic as a genius. He does it just to wind atheists up. It's rather flattering really as he clearly regards atheists as the brains to pretend he is smarter than, by winding up, mocking and prancing about thumbing his nose at us.
.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-13-2018 at 03:04 AM..
No. It is included as one of all the meanings...and cannot be denied as a meaning.
It is just that this particular way of summing up the position..."Lack Belief"...is not logical, let alone demonstrative of any conviction.
"Lack Belief" essentially claims that you don't have a "Belief Position" about the matter. When, in fact, that is not true...you do have a "Belief Position" about it.
And this is what I'm talking about. People claiming they "Lack Belief"...right after they tell you what they believe about it.
So, you do NOT "Lack Belief" about it...you DO have a "Belief" about it.
And that "Belief" is that Religions are all man-made and thus the Deities are not real, but invented...and there is no evidence that they are anything but invented. THAT is what y'all state that you BELIEVE about it.
The only "Lack" you have is in the level of probability those man-made Gods actually exist in Reality.
Most not only have a "Belief Position" about it...they even, like you, give the reasons for why they believe the way they do.
No one has a "Lack of Belief" in a matter they have considered. They may have a "Belief in a Lack" of the probability as to the veracity of a claim about the matter...but you can't "Lack Belief" in a matter you hold a belief about.
Like I said, 'doctrine' now goes on the list with 'belief' and 'faith'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
