Its a fact that god does not exist

[myp]

Ok, how about when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe? They could not "see" the Earth in space, it was simply the theory at hand. And it was not only accepted by religions, but was a core part of physicists' research at the time. You can't deny that the possibility of God is not real because you have no alternative. I am not asking you to prove the non-existence of God, I am simply asking you to give me another explanation. These "explanations" are called theories and no matter how you feel, God should be accepted at least as a theory.

 

[Dirk]

Ok, how about when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe? They could not "see" the Earth in space, it was simply the theory at hand. And it was not only accepted by religions, but was a core part of physicists' research at the time. You can't deny that the possibility of God is not real because you have no alternative. I am not asking you to prove the non-existence of God, I am simply asking you to give me another explanation. These "explanations" are called theories and no matter how you feel, God should be accepted at least as a theory.

Alright, let's humour this for a moment.

How do you feel aout the stork theory about biological reproduction?

How do you feel about the tooth fairy theory aout the fate of childrens' milk teeth?

Do you see what i'm getting at?

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

In regards to flat earth theory, i don't really think the two are comparable. Scientists made a positive contrary claim

Actually, BOTH claims were positive and affirmative claims. Flatness was based on evidence, and made a positive claim. It did not say "The earth is flat because you cannot prove otherwise". It was based on evidence of observation.

They had evidence to support the hypothesis (i forget exactly what it was - common sense isn't evidence, by the way) and it was eventually proven for the layman.

The evidence was mathematical and also based on the horizon and light. If the Earth was flat, a man realized that he would be able to see all the way to the "end". Of course, the days, seasons and of course the resulting circumnavigation of the globe followed to prove his theory.

 

[myp]

Ah, yes. How are you defining universal laws - the laws of physics, or what?

I can't say i'm a physicist - i'm more into biology. But gravity, for one thing, is relative to mass. I think the idea is like a suspended stretched-out net. If you put objects on the net, they create a dent and objects with smaller mass will be drawn toward it. Does that help any?

In what way do you think that a god is involved, and in what way are we defining this god?

I was thinking on a broader scale- how the theories of gravity and electromagnetism are the way they are, what their purpose is, and what created them. Even if string theory is the answer, then what created the strings. There is always that question and it would likely end with the answer equaling the purpose of the universe, but that has not been proven and as such, God can be a possible explanation and hence I think everyone should at least accept the possibility of God unless they feel more strongly about a competing theory. If they have none and can not disprove the theory of God, then how can they say with certainty that God is not real?

In regards to flat earth theory, i don't really think the two are comparable. Scientists made a positive contrary claim - that the Earth is globular - and were persecuted for this thoughtcrime. They had evidence to support the hypothesis (i forget exactly what it was - common sense isn't evidence, by the way) and it was eventually proven for the layman. The planet was circumnavigated.

That is exactly what I am saying though- the opposing party made an opposing argument- that the Earth is flat. If you want to say that the possibility of God is not real, then you must provide an opposing argument. Note, that of course the possibility of God and the existence of God are two different things. Seer Travis is saying that it is not even possible. I am saying that I believe everyone should at least accept the possibility, even if they don't believe in God.

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

Ok, how about when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe?

They based this theory on insufficient evidence, and they were wrong. It was a mainly religious instruction from the bible. At least they used some evidence, though - that of the earth existing and that of the "heavens" rotating.

They were simple wrong because they did not use the necessary evidence, just like you.

They could not "see" the Earth in space, it was simply the theory at hand.

They could see the Earth itself. They called it "the world". It was a religious-based instruction that was wrong. Your point being what?

You can't deny that the possibility of God is not real because you have no alternative.

False dilemma logical fallacy. Besides, there are alternative, many alternatives out there. But it does not matter. Your reasoning is faulty.

I am not asking you to prove the non-existence of God,

You did so.

I am simply asking you to give me another explanation. These "explanations" are called theories and no matter how you feel, God should be accepted at least as a theory

No. God is a delusion and is completely false. It is a fallacy of logic to suggest something is supported by a lack of knowledge in another area.

Ive already answered your silly question in regards of the laws of physics, and your silly question about the "cause" of the big bang or universe.

 

[Dirk]

I was thinking on a broader scale- how the theories of gravity and electromagnetism are the way they are, what their purpose is, and what created them.

Even if string theory is the answer, then what created the strings.

What makes you think they were "created"?

There is always that question and it would likely end with the answer equaling the purpose of the universe, but that has not been proven and as such,

Why do you think the universe has a "purpose"? Doesn't this act on the premise of sentient intention, which you are trying to demonstrate in the first place? Sorry if this is circular, i just can't work that out.

God can be a possible explanation and hence I think everyone should at least accept the possibility of God unless they feel more strongly about a competing theory. If they have none and can not disprove the theory of God, then how can they say with certainty that God is not real?

How about my opposing theory that a celestial turtle named Kevin belched the devoured remains of the previous universe, which became the strings for this one?

That is exactly what I am saying though- the opposing party made an opposing argument- that the Earth is flat. If you want to say that the possibility of God is not real, then you must provide an opposing argument. Note, that of course the possibility of God and the existence of God are two different things. Seer Travis is saying that it is not even possible. I am saying that I believe everyone should at least accept the possibility, even if they don't believe in God.

It's not about opposing sides - it's about positives and negatives.

Just about anything is possible, it's more what is likely that i raise issue with. I could raise any number of ridiculous claims - that doesn't mean they should automatically be considered as legitimate theories.

 

[Dirk]

Actually, BOTH claims were positive and affirmative claims. Flatness was based on evidence, and made a positive claim. It did not say "The earth is flat because you cannot prove otherwise". It was based on evidence of observation.

I know. I presumed that was evident.

The evidence was mathematical and also based on the horizon and light. If the Earth was flat, a man realized that he would be able to see all the way to the "end". Of course, the days, seasons and of course the resulting circumnavigation of the globe followed to prove his theory.

Ah. Thanks.

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

what their purpose is,

I already told you that "why" is not inherent in them. They cannot think, and thus have no purpose in that sense.

That is exactly what I am saying though- the opposing party made an opposing argument- that the Earth is flat.

Wrong. The flat earth was the original idea based on evidence. Then further new evidence came to light that then gave birth to the round idea.

Its the method, not whether they are right or not.

If you want to say that the possibility of God is not real, then you must provide an opposing argument.

No. You must provide the evidence of your claim. You are just doing this non-sense of negative proof again.

What you suggest is a false dilemma fallacy of logic.

Note, that of course the possibility of God and the existence of God are two different things. Seer Travis is saying that it is not even possible.

No, I am revealing the Truth that there is no god creature.

I am saying that I believe everyone should at least accept the possibility, even if they don't believe in God.

Possibility reeks of "potential". You are just trying the old spread your disease in stages trick.

You ask to consider a slight movement towards your position in order to make progress. But you cannot show why anyone should make this move. You are appealing to the "consider all opinions equally" drivel.

 

[myp]

Ok, Seer, clearly we aren't getting anywhere. Let me ask you something else- do you think that there is no possibility you are wrong? If so, what makes you think that you understand how the universe is so well that you can not possibly be wrong about something that in reality any human can be wrong about?

Just about anything is possible, it's more what is likely that i raise issue with. I could raise any number of ridiculous claims - that doesn't mean they should automatically be considered as legitimate theories.

Agreed, but isn't part of the beauty of knowing nothing for certain as humans- being able to choose for yourself what seems legitimate and what doesn't? The way I see it, you try to make sense of the world and believe what makes sense to you, or you just let it go if you think it is too "big" of an issue for any human to ever understand. Either way, why dismiss the ideas of others? That is my thinking behind it and is why I have no problem with atheists or people of religion. It makes no difference to me what others think, so long as I live my life by what makes sense to me.

As for the universe having "purpose", maybe that wasn't the right wording. My point there was that there are always questions about why? Why are things the way they are. The idea of God simply seeks to explain that.

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

How about my opposing theory that a celestial turtle named Kevin belched the devoured remains of the previous universe, which became the strings for this one?

Of course. This puts him in a rather funny position. He said he believes in god, and thus he is forced by special pleading logical fallacy to either :

1. Admit he is being illogical.

2. Accept your kevin the turtle theory also, as well as any other ridiculous speculations I can muster.

Perhaps Ted Bundy's ears created the universe? He cannot reject that and stay consistent, can he?

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

Ok, Seer, clearly we aren't getting anywhere.

Oh, I am. I am highlighting My Superiority. You are not getting anywhere because you are not giving honest answers.

Let me ask you something else-

OK, I suppose you were utterly defeated on your main claim so you might as well try something else.

do you think that there is no possibility you are wrong?

The Forbidden Truth is that there is no such thing as a god creature. The god creature does not exist.

I made that clear. God does NOT exist - the idea that god even MIGHT exist is also lie-based.

If so, what makes you think that you understand how the universe is so well that you can not possibly be wrong about something that in reality any human can be wrong about?

In reality, a Seer of Forbidden Truth such as Myself cannot be wrong about this issue, as long as he gives the correct answer (god does not exist).

Understanding the universe and physics is NOT required to know that the god creature does not exist.

Agreed, but isn't part of the beauty of knowing nothing for certain as humans- being able to choose for yourself what seems legitimate and what doesn't?

But you can choose - it's just a ridiculous and wrong choice you make.

Either way, why dismiss the ideas of others?

because they are irrational, false, ridiculous, lie-based, delusional, and not supported by a single shred of legitimate evidence.

As for the universe having "purpose", maybe that wasn't the right wording. My point there was that there are always questions about why? Why are things the way they are. The idea of God simply seeks to explain that.

That in principal is the same concept as before.

Your mistake is to presume that the mysteries of the universe are related to your utterly false god myth delusion.

 

[myp]

I stopped pursuing my original point with you because it is clear you are not willing to even consider anything other than what you believe. And from what you just said in your last post it seems like you think you are all-knowing in this issue and that you can not possibly wrong. You know what being in society is thought to have the same characteristics? God.

And as for "the Forbidden Truth," who says its real? It is a theory just like any other. You are a human just like all of us and no one is all-knowing. If you claim to be, you are essentially claiming to be a higher being, a God. If you claim you have gotten this truth from some higher force or all-knowing being, then you are admitting that force or being is God.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

I stopped pursuing my original point with you because it is clear you are not willing to even consider anything other than what you believe.

You stopped because you cannot answer to Me and you dont dare. You ignore My points and instead choose to debate the weaker stance Dirk makes.

And from what you just said in your last post it seems like you think you are all-knowing in this issue and that you can not possibly wrong. You know what being in society is thought to have the same characteristics? God.

I said that I am not wrong on this issue, not all issues. I dont claim to know everything.

Likewise, I know 100% that I see the moon in the sky as a round shape. I am I 100% correct? Yes. But that does not mean that I suggest I am a god - especially when I already told you god does not exist.

And as for "the Forbidden Truth," who says its real?

It is real, and proven such on My website on the opening page.

You are trying to change the subject and bury My previous posts.

PS The god creature does not exist. We are still waiting for your claimed evidence. Will you post a picture of bread crumbs? That would at least by trying to post evidence.

 

[myp]

I have given my breadcrumbs (the questions about the laws of physics, etc.) and if you don't want to give me any hard evidence or alternate to that idea, then so be it. And as for your moon analogy- even that you can't be 100% sure of. You may see it as round, but what if it in fact isn't round when looked at from the 4th, 5th, or 6th dimensions? It is like the 2d being that can not imagine how a 3d figure looks. Furthermore, what if the moon is just a figment of your imagination? What if all of existence is as such? Questions such as these show that nothing can be proven 100% for certain by humans. We simply can't see everything.

And the Forbidden Truth, if it were so real and proved on your site, would surely have received a lot of media attention and more followers, no?

 

[Dirk]

You ignore My points and instead choose to debate the weaker stance Dirk makes.

Why, thank you!

 

[Dirk]

I have given my breadcrumbs (the questions about the laws of physics, etc.) and if you don't want to give me any hard evidence or alternate to that idea, then so be it. And as for your moon analogy- even that you can't be 100% sure of. You may see it as round, but what if it in fact isn't round when looked at from the 4th, 5th, or 6th dimensions? It is like the 2d being that can not imagine how a 3d figure looks. Furthermore, what if the moon is just a figment of your imagination? What if all of existence is as such? Questions such as these show that nothing can be proven 100% for certain by humans. We simply can't see everything.

Hehe. Philosophical scepticism.

 

[myp]

Hehe. Philosophical scepticism.

Always a possibility and unless he claims to be omniscient (even in this one matter) he has to admit it is possible. If he doesn't then he is either giving conflicting arguments or admitting that he is omniscient in this matter (and maybe more) or knows someone who is omniscient in the matter- both cases in which he admits to the existence of a God or God-like being.

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

I have given my breadcrumbs (the questions about the laws of physics, etc.)

These are not evidences of the god creature at all. You are yet to give your breadcrumbs. PS I know you have not a single shred of legitimate evidence to give and that is why you keep dodging.

and if you don't want to give me any hard evidence or alternate to that idea, then so be it.

I did several times, such as post #59 for example. You just ignore My counter-arguments.

And as for your moon analogy- even that you can't be 100% sure of. You may see it as round, but what if it in fact isn't round when looked at from the 4th, 5th, or 6th dimensions?

Does not matter, because My claim is only what I saw. Round means what I saw as round. I specifically stated that.

Furthermore, what if the moon is just a figment of your imagination?

Again. Although I know it is not, because of the tides etc. The only figment of imagination is your god creature.

What if all of existence is as such? Questions such as these show that nothing can be proven 100% for certain by humans.

Ah, the last resort- the so called Matrix fallacy. If I say a pen is red, then all I say is that is what I experience. If I am in the matrix, then I am right regardless, because My claim never stated otherwise.

And the Forbidden Truth, if it were so real and proved on your site, would surely have received a lot of media attention and more followers, no?

No. 99.99999% of humans reject, hate and spend their lives trying to ignore and run away from the Forbidden Truths of life.

 

[Zakalwe]

Perhaps the argument should not be whether God exists or does not exist because it cannot be proven either way, but rather if God is actually worthy of the name/position God and the praise/worship which goes hand in hand with that position.

There are several traits and characteristics of God, and several events and behaviours which make the Christian God not one worthy of praise, worship or indeed the title of God. Consider:

Hypocrisy. Two of the Ten Commandments are in direct contravention of each other. Though shalt not covet thy neighbours ass, nor his house etc is listed alongside Though shalt not worship any other God. So, let's take a look for a moment. It's okay for YOU to covet the worshippers of Buddha and Allah, but I can't covet Phil's PS3? Interesting....

Blatant stupidity. Anyone with children knows that if you put something within their reach and tell them not to touch it, they'll want to touch it. Add the tree of knowledge to the Garden of Eden and tell your children not to touch it. We all know what the end result would be. But the omnipotent God didn't?

Infanticide. God sent his lonly Son, Jesus, to his death. As the omnipotent Father of all, he knew that Jesus would be tortured, persecuted and executed, yet he sent him anyway. To his death. God killed his only child. The ultimate act of self-sacrifice? Or child abuse and murder?

Genocide. Let's step it up a notch. In his great flood which spared Noah, Noah's wife and two of each animal, God commited the most heinous act of genocide in history. Hitler has nothing on this guy. Saint Stalin should be worshipped as the epitomy of kindness. Wiping out the entire population of the planet, including:

• Children in the womb
• Babies
• The weak, the old, the infirm

Is an act of savage genocide unlike any we can imagine.

So ask not if God exists, but ask, if he does, is he worthy of being your God?

 

[Seer Travis Truman]

Perhaps the argument should not be whether God exists or does not exist because it cannot be proven either way, but rather if God is actually worthy of the name/position God and the praise/worship which goes hand in hand with that position.

The Forbidden Truth is that a god creature does not exist. It is the positive claim that requires proof, not a negative one. There is a mountain of arguments and reasons why god is utterly false. More importantly, there has never been a shred of legitimate evidence that a god creature even might exist.

Those who suggest that a god creature so much might exists are sadly all god-addicts themselves, albeit often in a lesser fashion and also at a more-denied mental level.

Just as in My easter bunny example, it is ridiculous to suggest these make-believe tales need to be "dis-proven".

Therefore, to worship a non-existent being is ridiculous and demonstrative of societally-induced mental derangement. Even if you believe in a god creature, there is absolutely no reason at all to indicate that the bible was written by a god creature, or that it should contain any real instructions from the god creature.

There are several traits and characteristics of God, and several events and behaviours which make the Christian God not one worthy of praise, worship or indeed the title of God. Consider:

All correct except for the title. The title is just a label, and it applies.

Hypocrisy..

This is a rather weak example of hypocrisy. The fact is, the bible is full of glaring hypocrisy that are not only more blatant, but genocidal in scope.

Blatant stupidity. Anyone with children knows that if you put something within their reach and tell them not to touch it, they'll want to touch it. Add the tree of knowledge to the Garden of Eden and tell your children not to touch it. We all know what the end result would be. But the omnipotent God didn't?

Of course. The god creature displays endless stupidity and oversight, even though he supposedly knows all. In fact you cannot know everything, for god would not know what it was to be mistaken.

Infanticide. God sent his only Son, Jesus, to his death. As the omnipotent Father of all, he knew that Jesus would be tortured, persecuted and executed, yet he sent him anyway. To his death. God killed his only child. The ultimate act of self-sacrifice? Or child abuse and murder?

The god creature as expressed in the bible is a genocidally enraged and completely deranged power hungry maniac.

Genocide. Let's step it up a notch. In his great flood which spared Noah, .....SNIP...... as the epitomy of kindness. Wiping out the entire population of the planet, including:

Of course. However, since the god creature does not actually exist, its still a moot point.

So ask not if God exists, but ask, if he does, is he worthy of being your God?

This is a pro-god-myth and lie-based statement. The obvious solution is to clearly see the Truth that no god creature exists, and that such a god creature as described in the bible is not worthy of worship.