Its a fact that god does not exist

Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#81
Questions such as these show that nothing can be proven 100% for certain by humans. We simply can't see everything.
I want to add something. The word "proof" meaning comes from its use. It is inherent in he words like fact and proof that they don't have to answer to unreasonable skepticism such as yours.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#83
But, when I make an argument that does support the idea of God (or in your case it would be for bread :p) you can't simply respond by saying "God does not exist" or "bread does not exist in my house." I did make what I felt was a valid argument for the existence of God and as such, even if you still feel you are right, shouldn't you explain to be how my argument (which in a way does serve as some form of rational or proof) is false and that your claim is still right?
Agreed, no one can say "God does not exist". They can say as Richard Dawkins says "There is probably not a God", and by the same token those who believe can say "There is probably a God". For my own personal self He definitely exists, but obviously that is my own certainty and I don't have any empirical proof for it.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#84
Then your brain is diseased So badly that even this basic Truth eludes you. He never made a single argument to show that there was a god creature at all. He just says he did. He cannot produce it, and it is not in the thread.

no one can say "God does not exist".
Incorrect. God does not exist, that is the Truth.

They can say as Richard Dawkins says "There is probably not a God",
Dawkins largely does evolution and especially atheism a dis-service. Dawkins has nothing to do with Me.

and by the same token those who believe can say "There is probably a God".
By the false Dawkins standard, you need to say that "There is almost certainly not a god." However, "god does not exist" is the correct answer.

For my own personal self He definitely exists, but obviously that is my own certainty and I don't have any empirical proof for it.
You have a delusion, not a certainty. You have not one single shred of evidence whatsoever to suggest that there is a god creature.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#85
Then your brain is diseased So badly that even this basic Truth eludes you.
That could also be probably true.

Incorrect. God does not exist, that is the Truth.
Probably according to you, yes. But I do differ from your perception of the Truth. Which is your perception.


Dawkins largely does evolution and especially atheism a dis-service. Dawkins has nothing to do with Me.
I would be interested in why you think he is doing atheism a disservice.


By the false Dawkins standard, you need to say that "There is almost certainly not a god."
Thanks for the correction.

However, "god does not exist" is the correct answer.
Your perception, perhaps. What evidence do you have for that?

You have a delusion, not a certainty. You have not one single shred of evidence whatsoever to suggest that there is a god creature.
I am probably deluded, but by the same token I have not seen a single shred of evidence for proving that there is no God either. Have you?
 
Last edited:
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#86
Didn't we just go through several pages explaining how we don't need - in fact cannot prove a negative. But you can prove a positive.
 
#87
Didn't we just go through several pages explaining how we don't need - in fact cannot prove a negative. But you can prove a positive.
Right. And the Bible exists and is evidence of the existence of God. Your lack of acceptance of that fact is recognized and accepted, but does not change anything. If I denied the existence of the Sun based on my own superstition you could produce astronomical evidence to support your argument. My dismissal out of hand of your evidence would not change the fact that the evidence exists and is open to my interpretation.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#88
Right. And the Bible exists
I agree the bible exists, you are correct. It is a book of hypocritical stories, insane and irrational concepts, proposals, ideologies etc etc etc.

and is evidence of the existence of God.
It is not legitimate evidence of god, any more than a potato is evidence of the existence of galaxies. Nor is "the lord of the rings" book evidence of elves, orcs etc.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suggest that the bible is evidence of god. You know it deep down, and you choose to delude yourself. So be it. It wont help you.

You die because your cell integrity eventually causes loss of some critical body function, that causes blood-flow to your brain to cease. Your brain is you, your brain is like a piece of meat. Lack of blood makes it rot like a piece of meat outside in the sun. That is My fate, as it is yours. Your death will come anyway, and you will then experience death and nothingness for all eternity.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#89
Didn't we just go through several pages explaining how we don't need - in fact cannot prove a negative. But you can prove a positive.
We sure did. Your brain is obviously functioning correctly in this issue, which is one of method and logical principal. However, god-addicts just simply ignore any rational, sane, factual argument and just stream-roll their way through with a mantra of lies. This is one example of the rejection of simple Truth that I speak of on My website.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#90
That could also be probably true.
It is True.

Probably according to you, yes. But I do differ from your perception of the Truth. Which is your perception.
Not probably, actually. Truth perception exists in True Reality version of Truth. When I said "Truth", I meant objectively True.

I would be interested in why you think he is doing atheism a disservice.
The reasons are many. Firstly, he makes his points in a big, thick book using long explanations that are boring and not to the point. It could be short and straightforward. Adolf Hitler knew you human lot so well. He knew that any mantra was to be kept short, simple and repeated so many times that it becomes ingrained.

So, it is too technical, complicated and wordy.

Second, he suggests that there might be a chance of god existing. This is incorrect. God does not exist. He makes it open that perhaps he is wrong. This is an active advertisement for religion.

Third, he never reveals any meaty Forbidden Truth in his book. The Forbidden Truth is only held when all the details and ramifications are dug up, not just the outer layer of Truth.

So, Dawkins makes some good points, but like in "the greatest show on earth", he makes the error of making things too un-approachable and complicated.

See My website for more details under the insane god myth link.

Your perception, perhaps. What evidence do you have for that?
It is not a perception, but the correct answer. This has already been gone over in this thread. Your insane demand is a backhanded negation.

I am probably deluded, but by the same token I have not seen a single shred of evidence for proving that there is no God either. Have you?
I have seen not a shred FOR god, but against the god I have seen plenty. However, it should be remembered that I need not provide evidence against, they need evidence for.

For example the god creature is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. This is actually impossible. "Can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - the argument disproves the assertion.

I need not go on. No evidence exists of a god creature.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#93
And the evidence for that is ...... ?

Not probably, actually. Truth perception exists in True Reality version of Truth. When I said "Truth", I meant objectively True.
It can only be your perception of the truth, as you are limited by your senses and are a temporary mortal human being. You are not an omnicent being. You can only see the truth from your perception, not further than that. Viz. the cave allegory of Plato.

The reasons are many. Firstly, he makes his points in a big, thick book using long explanations that are boring and not to the point. It could be short and straightforward. Adolf Hitler knew you human lot so well. He knew that any mantra was to be kept short, simple and repeated so many times that it becomes ingrained

So, it is too technical, complicated and wordy.
I agree with you in this instance, but only as my point of view. Others are in awe with all of his books and presentations. The majority of atheists revere him and think his God Delusion book is outstanding. I don't agree with them. But then realize that is on the basis of my own perception, and that they are free to have their perception too. Bottomline being tolerance of different points of view. I don't think any of us can ever really know the truth. We are limited in that we only have a number of years on earth, can only see portions of the earth and one another with limited senses. We are even limited by our emotions, our memories, our interpretations. I am very interested in what you have to say and what your point of view is, but unless you are an omnicient being, I cannot believe that you know the absolute truth. I don't know the absolute truth. Yet, I know I believe in God. I have faith in God. My perception again.

Second, he suggests that there might be a chance of god existing. This is incorrect. God does not exist. He makes it open that perhaps he is wrong. This is an active advertisement for religion.
Refer above.

Third, he never reveals any meaty Forbidden Truth in his book. The Forbidden Truth is only held when all the details and ramifications are dug up, not just the outer layer of Truth.
I agree with you on this as well. He pontificates. And most of his information comes from others. He has just dished it up all together in an appetizing way, and of course enriched himself in the process too. I wonder how many of his fans have really managed to read all of his books. Maybe some of the more intelligent ones and those with lots of integrity and honesty did that, but I'm certain they are in the minority.

So, Dawkins makes some good points, but like in "the greatest show on earth", he makes the error of making things too un-approachable and complicated.
I have not seen the show. I must be honest. I'm not too interested in this guy. I bought his books. Made my way in an exhausting way (as you described - most of it is very long-winding) through two of the books and the first few chapters of a third (Ancestor's Tale). I was really looking forward to read more about his meme theory in "The Selfish Gene" and was most disappointed, as his theory about memes was stashed away in the last chapter and nothing more was said than what I had found in Wikipedia before I purchased the book. When I did research I also discovered that this meme theory was not really "his" theory. Others had already discussed it before he put it into a book that just happen to sell very well.

See My website for more details under the insane god myth link.
Thanks for the invitation. Do you have a direct link to it to help me out?

It is not a perception, but the correct answer. This has already been gone over in this thread. Your insane demand is a backhanded negation.
No, it is my perception. It could probably be insane, but that would be your perception.

I have seen not a shred FOR god, but against the god I have seen plenty. However, it should be remembered that I need not provide evidence against, they need evidence for.
Now I am disappointed. I thought you had evidence against it. I thought "truth" is usually based on evidence on both sides for and against. So this can't really be the truth then. Only a "shadow" of the truth?

For example the god creature is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. This is actually impossible. "Can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - the argument disproves the assertion.
This statement is according to human beings. For me God is much larger than the Universe, and we live in Him. It would be totally impossible to imagine Him as he transcends everything we could ever have imagined through our limited perception, i.e. we are earth-bound, can't jump from planet to planet without complicated equipment attached to us, we are going to die one day. We are very mortal and very limited. We can only view God by mirroring ourselves on Him, and since we are so limited, our ideas about Him are limited as well.

I need not go on. No evidence exists of a god creature.
Nor that God does not exist. There is no evidence for or against.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#95
And the evidence for that is ...... ?
There is no evidence required. I already made that clear. However, there IS evidence that the insane god myth is false, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Your backhanded negation is just a silly attempt to circumvent the obvious - there is not a single shred of evidence to so much suggest that there might be a god, let alone that there is.

It can only be your perception of the truth, as you are limited by your senses and are a temporary mortal human being. You are not an omnicent being. You can only see the truth from your perception, not further than that. Viz. the cave allegory of Plato.
Incorrect. There are objective an real concrete facts. Your claim above is one example - you claim it to be True, although it cannot be. Some things are relative, others not.

I cannot believe that you know the absolute truth. I don't know the absolute truth. Yet, I know I believe in God. I have faith in God. My perception again.
Its a delusion you have, not a perception. I do know the Forbidden Truth, of that there is no doubt. You know I know, because that PM to Me proves you really know deep down but need to deny because of the false guilt you feel in your True Reality that society foistered upon you.

The fact that you can believe in such a preposterous proposition such as the insane god myth and yet deny the Truth I reveal is ultra-demented.
----------------
Second, he suggests that there might be a chance of god existing. This is incorrect. God does not exist. He makes it open that perhaps he is wrong. This is an active advertisement for religion.
Refer above.
So its all perception now? No, you just pull that out when you cannot or will not answer properly.

You said earlier : Agreed, no one can say "God does not exist". They can say as Richard Dawkins says "There is probably not a God", and by the same token those who believe can say "There is probably a God". For my own personal self He definitely exists, but obviously that is my own certainty and I don't have any empirical proof for it.
Above you suggest what some-one can rationally say, according to your understanding. How can that be if its all perception? You are just using that as a dismissing argument - the cloak for ignorance.

No, it is my perception. It could probably be insane, but that would be your perception.
Wrong. I am talking concrete facts here. Your perception argument is just a smokescreen and a dodge to back up your claims that you know are false. You just need to live a lie because you are not strong enough to live a life of Truth as I am.

Now I am disappointed. I thought you had evidence against it. I thought "truth" is usually based on evidence on both sides for and against. So this can't really be the truth then. Only a "shadow" of the truth?
Wrong again. The person making the positive claim needs to provide the evidence, not those disputing the positive claim.

You claim, I dont claim. God does not exist, get over it.

This statement is according to human beings.
Who else could make them? Stop dodging, and try and answer. You just know you are sunk, just admit it. How can an all-powerful being exist when he could not make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?

How can god know all )Omniscience) ? Can he know what it is like for him to be wrong? See? It cannot be.

Nor that God does not exist. There is no evidence for or against.
The insane god myth has a mountain of evidence against it, you are just forced to lie because you live a lie. There needs to be some evidence FOR the god myth before it can be True.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#96
Your backhanded negation is just a silly attempt to circumvent the obvious - there is not a single shred of evidence to so much suggest that there might be a god, let alone that there is.
No, there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is no God. In fact, one could go a little further, at least there is a presumption of a God through the existence of a variety of Bibles, the Koran etc, that have been passed on from generation to generation for centuries and centuries. That is much more than what you have to prove there is no God.

Incorrect. There are objective an real concrete facts. Your claim above is one example - you claim it to be True, although it cannot be. Some things are relative, others not.
That is not true. I claimed it to be my perception of the truth, which is different from your perception of the truth, and that neither of the two of us are omnipotent enough to grasp the final and absolute truth.

Its a delusion you have, not a perception. I do know the Forbidden Truth, of that there is no doubt.
What difference is that from saying a person has no doubt that God exists. If you know the Forbidden Truth, that you have no proof off, except to say you know it and that you have no doubt about that, why can't someone say they know there is a God and they have no doubt about that?

That is very presumptuous of you to say. I most certainly know that I don't know. I've probably repeated this many times. We are too mortal, too limited by our senses, too unique in our thoughts, to be able to recognize a truth separate from us.

because that PM to Me proves you really know deep down but need to deny because of the false guilt you feel in your True Reality that society foistered upon you.
That may be true. For one to know the absolute truth, you probably would have to investigate the dark side of it too. I'm not prepared to do that, and I both admire as well as have sympathy with those who do. But even by doing that, you may just be able to make your own opinion of what the truth would be. This opinion would again be the equivalent of Plato's allegory of the cave. It would be your own perception, and could never be completely equal to others and may miss the point all together. We are only using our senses when we observe things around us. There is a very good possibility that we are missing something very important that cannot be viewed with the senses.

The fact that you can believe in such a preposterous proposition such as the insane god myth and yet deny the Truth I reveal is ultra-demented.
It is true that I do deny some of the truth that is around, to make life comfortable for myself. I completely admit to that. But I stand by the above point that the complete truth would be permanently elusive for mortal and non-omnipotent human beings.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#97
No, there isn't a single shred of evidence that there is no God.
There are plenty of argument that debunk this insane theory, you just reject them beause they attack your delusion. I told you, you need the evidence.

In fact, one could go a little further, at least there is a presumption of a God through the existence of a variety of Bibles, the Koran etc, that have been passed on from generation to generation for centuries and centuries. That is much more than what you have to prove there is no God.
Bibles are not evidence of any god creature. They are only evidence of the deranged and Truth-hating nature of human beings.

That is not true. I claimed it to be my perception of the truth, which is different from your perception of the truth, and that neither of the two of us are omnipotent enough to grasp the final and absolute truth.
Its all a cloak for ignorance. Every time I argue a point, you just say :

1. Nothing is Truth.
2. Since nothing is Truth it can be false.
3. Nothing can be determined.

Stop quoting Plato, because you philosophy knowledge are dismal and you are not any good at it.

I will repeat : You claim Truth is un-obtainable because you claim all Truth is relative to perception. If there are different perceptions, then there is relativity.

Your problem is thus : Cannot My perception be that there is an objective Truth, for how can you resolve the two? But there cannot be perception and objective Truth.

You claim nothing can be objectively True. But your statement that nothing can be objectively True itself is an objectively True claim. You cannot have it both ways.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#98
There are plenty of argument that debunk this insane theory, you just reject them beause they attack your delusion. I told you, you need the evidence.
So do you. At least I have a record of people who have believed in God for centuries and centuries. You have nothing to bring to the table except your point of view.

Bibles are not evidence of any god creature. They are only evidence of the deranged and Truth-hating nature of human beings.
All what is in the Bible is not true, that I agree with, the Bible has been written by very normally imperfect and mortal people. But the Bible has been with us for centuries and centuries so is still more evidence than just your point of view.

I will repeat : You claim Truth is un-obtainable because you claim all Truth is relative to perception. If there are different perceptions, then there is relativity.

Your problem is thus : Cannot My perception be that there is an objective Truth, for how can you resolve the two? But there cannot be perception and objective Truth.

You claim nothing can be objectively True. But your statement that nothing can be objectively True itself is an objectively True claim. You cannot have it both ways.
Good point, but no, it is not an objectively true claim. It is only my view, which can differ from yours.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#99
So do you. At least I have a record of people who have believed in God for centuries and centuries. You have nothing to bring to the table except your point of view.
People have believed loads of stupid things for incredible lengths of time.

But the Bible has been with us for centuries and centuries so is still more evidence than just your point of view.
First, something being old does not make it correct. Second, the bible is so highly edited, it is very little use as a document of any sort.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
People have believed loads of stupid things for incredible lengths of time.

First, something being old does not make it correct. Second, the bible is so highly edited, it is very little use as a document of any sort.
Agreed. But what can you bring to the table to prove that God does not exist. All you can do is to negate the Bible. You can't disprove the existence of God.
 

Similar Discussions