There is no God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So "god" is just a label on things that already exist.

Kinda like those job promotions where you have the same job and the same pay and the same desk, but instead of Specialist, you become SENIOR Specialist.

Same universe as yesterday, but now it's the GOD universe.

I should have said that "god" is just a new label for something old. But, yah, that's how it works.

 

[Malintent]

For me, it is better to believe in something than to believe in nothing.

It's better to believe it is necessary to kill gay people, rather than to believe nothing about them?

What, incidentally, is this "nothing" you think anyone "believes" in?

I don't believe your (whatever it is) rather stupid ideas of god-people. Just because your ideas are demonstrably wrong, does not mean I do not believe in "anything".

I believe in lots of things, people, and ideas... for what I believe are good reasons for doing so. It is only the fool that believes in things for no valid reason... based merely on the threat of punishment for not believing in them. That whole part of religion is just dangerous and primitive.

 

[Malintent]

Whereas your arguments are based on what exactly?

God is not to be understood by sentimentalists and speculators nor can He be understood through experiments.

And how do you know this? And please, provide an answer that does not include any mental speculations you seem to discount.

We all have imperfect senses but still we believe that the instruments such as telescopes, microscopes and so on that are built by such imperfect senses are able to give us perfect understanding.

Who believes that? I have never encountered an atheist or scientist who claims to have perfect understanding. They are tools to enhance or enable observations, and thus lead to better understanding, but there is always room for improvement.

Also, if we cannot use mental speculations, nor observations, what can we use?

Nor our minds are able to understand the unlimited Supreme.

How do you know this. Again, no mental speculations, please.

A sane man cannot consider any argument presented by a so called scientist, atheist or religious sentimentalist as bona fide for all of them fail to use one thing, “intelligence”.

So, anybody not agreeing with you is neither sane nor intelligent?

Actually religion is the real science and sentimentalism is not to be consider religious.

Oh, and how do you know this?

Existence of God based on beliefs shouldn’t be accepted by any human being. Both sentimentalism and atheism cannot affect the existence of God as the sun is never affected by clouds.

The purpose of the arguments is to try to discover whether such being exist, no to affect the existence,

If we can engage our intelligence for a second the existence of the Supreme will become the absolute truth.

How do you know this. How if this not a mental speculation?

Religion means science of knowing and loving God. We have to know God otherwise how can we love Him?

How do you know this? Besides, does a deity have to actually exist in order somebody to love it? People do have imaginary friends...

Nothing in existence can act without a controller. It is childish not to consider the controller as it is insane to deny the existence of a source of anything.

Again, how do you know this? It's a quite a logical leap to argue that "an automobile needs controller, automobiles exist, therefore nothing in existence can act without controller".

A question may arise that if everything has a source then where does God come from?

Yes, unless you consider it to belong to the pesky category of mental speculations.

First one should understand the superiority of spirit over matter.

How do you know this? Reads like speculation to me.

Even though all element that are in a live body are there in a dead body, because of the absence of a spirit soul a dead body cannot behave like a live body.

How do you know there is a spirit soul in a live body? Even if one does admit that a live body must have a controller, would living brains be not enough?

In the material realm time influences everything whereas in the spiritual realm time does not exist.

And this is known by which means?

So there cannot be a question of beginning and end nor creation and destruction in the spiritual realm.

How do you know this to be true?

God is the Supreme whole, the original person; that we can understand because everything in existence has a personality.

Really? Does the chair I am sitting now have a personality? And how do you know this to be true?

Besides, how can something be "the original" if there is no time and thus no beginning in the spiritual realm?

So if everything has a personality how can the source of everything not have a personality?

How can there be a source for everything if "everything" includes something with no time and thus no beginning?

God Has all qualities unlimitedly

How do you know this?

No combination of matter can create consciousness but spirit soul bring consciousness to matter.

How do you know this?

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago in an extinct language, that has been translated, and re-translated, dozens of times.
2) mental speculation from a biased mind (from, see above).

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago

Well, we'd need to see the process the poster used to verify this book above all other books and scrolls and tablets available for the religious.
I'm guessing speculation, as above.

 

[bilby]

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago

Well, we'd need to see the process the poster used to verify this book above all other books and scrolls and tablets available for the religious.
I'm guessing speculation, as above.

That's easy - he was repeatedly told that it was both true and important, from a very young age, by people he trusts.

The 'young age' bit is not completely essential, but it does make the indoctrination easier if they don't have to complete with pre-existing knowledge or experience.

Thinking is hard. Agreeing with your parents, teachers and priests is easy. People are lazy.

It's not hard to understand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how is such a great living being convinced that he is just a lump of flesh?

Are you saying I'm overweight?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You guys do know that god is kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls' porch, right?

 

[Ovazor]

You guys do know that god is kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls' porch, right?

How is this known? *ducks*

 

[TSwizzle]

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago in an extinct language, that has been translated, and re-translated, dozens of times.

A book that was put together by a focus group in Nicaea.

 

[bilby]

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago in an extinct language, that has been translated, and re-translated, dozens of times.

A book that was put together by a focus group in Nicaea.

... and then heavily edited by a committee appointed by King James I & VI, to support his political case for unifying England and Scotland.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are two sources for how this poster "knows this"

1) a book written thousands of years ago in an extinct language, that has been translated, and re-translated, dozens of times.

A book that was put together by a focus group in Nicaea.

To be accurate it is a collection of selected books. I'm not sure when the books morphed into the bible.

It used to have a lot more books until the Nicea group threw out what it didn't like.

 

[Juma]

A book that was put together by a focus group in Nicaea.

To be accurate it is a collection of selected books. I'm not sure when the books morphed into the bible.

It used to have a lot more books until the Nicea group threw out what it didn't like.

There was no Bible before Nicaea. Only a lot of different books. The "Omnibus edition" known to you as "The Bible" was created at Nicaea.

 

[blastula]

There was at the time a list in use that was more or less the final 27, but Nicaea was about the godhead. The canon wasn't set there.

 

[Underseer]

There was at the time a list in use that was more or less the final 27, but Nicaea was about the godhead. The canon wasn't set there.

They decided on doctrine in part to decide which books to accept and which to reject, didn't they?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Here. Read this.

 

[Underseer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Here. Read this.

Holy crap, what a confused mess! How can anyone make sense of all of that?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The canon was not fixed at the council of Nicea, which seems to be a rather common idea, but it isn't ture. The final decision as to what is canonical was made about 400 CE. The process was long, complicated and not totally transparent.