Does God exist?

[GrizzZzzly]

Let the debunkification begin...

By common conception of all religions believing in God, God is a perfect being.

Because God is a perfect being it cannot exist or pertain qualities with/of the imperfect and finite. Otherwise it would be a direct contradiction. God cannot have limited size, age, power. It does not need legs, a spine, or a body, it cannot have any of them. It does not have a gender (gender is a imperfect attribute, a sign of imperfection.) IF God exist's to the idea religion thinks it can exist God is above any form of basic human comprehension. It cannot talk, It cannot communicate in any sense we could ever understand. Immediately the old testament of the bible is nullified by its own beliefs.

The nature of God is such that it is beyond human comprehension, but the concept of God itself is very much within human comprehension (which is why we are talking about it). Why should this restrict divine communication with humans? It cannot talk, true, because it does not have a mouth. That does not mean that it cannot give rise to sound percievable by humans. However that is not even the point. When God is said to have called down to humans, there are numerous interpretations: a real sound, a voice in one's mind, which may or may not be percieved to be a real voice etc. etc. You can't nullify the old testament by virtue of a communications error. That's the excuse train operators use for late trains around here, but this is the first time I've seen it in a theological context. Additionally, attempts to find some minor inconsistency in scripture to justify the nonexistence of God are normally fruitless, since the scripture is written for the very purpose to inspire belief in God.

But wait. If God is perfect, then sureley it can effect the finite and imperfect llevels of existence? Well no, because then its not perfect...oh dear. The idea of a completely perfect being, the way the bible and all God based religions imply CANNOT exist. It's impossible for such a thing to exist. You could say well thats just my limited immature thinking...well no, because thats like saying I have hair on my head and I have no hair on my head at the same time, just dam silly!

The idea that an infinite, perfect being cannot affect a finite, imperfect world is as much a belief as my belief in a God. You have no justification for this. And repeating the claim that a completely perfect being cannot exist will not make it any more true. As for your analogy about your hair, I don't see how it has any bearing on this whatsoever, but let me assure you that there are some crazier things in nature than what you have just mentioned. Particle-Wave duality for one....unless you understand it...

So we have a pickle dont we. Only way dear old Yahwe can exist is if it aint perfect. In which case it is flawed. In which case people would lose faith. In which case God dies basically... long and painfully.

Next. We have the idea of free will. Determinism. Cause and Effect. NO FREE WILL. Does God plan out our destiny? Is the lord all powerful? Well erm..if he does..then how can we have free will? If 'he' has a plan for us? Oh dear....

Reread Genesis. In Christian theology at least, God only "plans out our destiny" if we put our faith in him. You have the right to be entirely unaffected by God. Additionally, infinite power on God's part does not preclude us from having free will. It would only do so if it were used contrary to our free will. As for the bearing of this argument on the existence on God, I'm not entirely sure where you're going....

So? God. Firstly, always ignore religion. Marxist is the best. Religion = way to control the masses. Its true. Yes, it provides other things, gives people hope and relief from the inevitable doom of death. It helps explain things we cannot, and hell it can actually give people drive and other great stuff. So THOUGH religion IS a God dam HUGE contradiction of itself, it has positive uses.

I personally believe IF God does exist, by some means beyond even my comprehension and the many philosophical minds that this planet has seen over the past 2000 years or more, then your relationship with it must be personal, but never real, because it can never be anything due to God's nature.

According to some beliefs, the relationship is personal. But this varies. I don't entirely understand what you mean by a "real" relationship, and how this relates to the nature of God. God's perfection does not preclude this relationship. I'm not sure what does....

As for the many philosophical minds this planet has produced, we have already stated that the nature of God is incomprehensible, and this does not change in proportion to the number of white-bearded philosophers you throw at it. The concept of God will always be incomprehensible. It is entirely up to you then whether you choose to believe or not.

The ONLY way for God to exist is to accept things far beyond our understanding, and to do away with religion, because despite its usefulness it does nothing good for God itself. So does God exist!? I bloody well dam hope so! But I seriously doubt it, and even if it did, whether it could actually do anything to help.

Why do you have to do away with religion to believe in God? Why does religion need to "do something good for God"?

Ultimately the question is unanswerable, by philosophy or by science, though I think debate is healthy.

[semper]

OHHHHHHHHHKAY...wise guy.

Let the debunkification begin...

By common conception of all religions believing in God, God is a perfect being.

Because God is a perfect being it cannot exist or pertain qualities with/of the imperfect and finite. Otherwise it would be a direct contradiction. God cannot have limited size, age, power. It does not need legs, a spine, or a body, it cannot have any of them. It does not have a gender (gender is a imperfect attribute, a sign of imperfection.) IF God exist's to the idea religion thinks it can exist God is above any form of basic human comprehension. It cannot talk, It cannot communicate in any sense we could ever understand. Immediately the old testament of the bible is nullified by its own beliefs.

The nature of God is such that it is beyond human comprehension, but the concept of God itself is very much within human comprehension (which is why we are talking about it). Why should this restrict divine communication with humans? It cannot talk, true, because it does not have a mouth. That does not mean that it cannot give rise to sound percievable by humans. However that is not even the point. When God is said to have called down to humans, there are numerous interpretations: a real sound, a voice in one's mind, which may or may not be percieved to be a real voice etc. etc. You can't nullify the old testament by virtue of a communications error. That's the excuse train operators use for late trains around here, but this is the first time I've seen it in a theological context. Additionally, attempts to find some minor inconsistency in scripture to justify the nonexistence of God are normally fruitless, since the scripture is written for the very purpose to inspire belief in God.

It cannot talk because that is a finite attribute, because we have no more efficient way to communicate. By the very definition of language A perfect being cannot do and have imperfect attributes...its impossible because then its flawed and not perfect? No? Communication from God to humans is not divine because by your own creational ideas its impossible. God simply cannot exist as a perfect transcendent being in any way that can be linked to us. Its just not a possibility. Like I said, if you want to turn around and say God exist's beyond our comprehension, BUT can still be perfect and communicate and exist in some way in our imperfect world, then well. Your basically saying that the definitions of language are wrong.

I can very easily nullify the old testament with a communications error. I just did in my first post. How can you rely on something that lies? I mean if you WANT to believe in blatent lies and misconceptions then fair enough, but you cant deny that by our own language the very idea of God is fallable, especially when viewed through

The Dogmatic

Narrow view of a bible belt christian.

You havnt countered anything I said with any plausible argument.

So whats it gonna be? Language or God?

But wait. If God is perfect, then sureley it can effect the finite and imperfect llevels of existence? Well no, because then its not perfect...oh dear. The idea of a completely perfect being, the way the bible and all God based religions imply CANNOT exist. It's impossible for such a thing to exist. You could say well thats just my limited immature thinking...well no, because thats like saying I have hair on my head and I have no hair on my head at the same time, just dam silly!

The idea that an infinite, perfect being cannot affect a finite, imperfect world is as much a belief as my belief in a God. You have no justification for this. And repeating the claim that a completely perfect being cannot exist will not make it any more true. As for your analogy about your hair, I don't see how it has any bearing on this whatsoever, but let me assure you that there are some crazier things in nature than what you have just mentioned. Particle-Wave duality for one....unless you understand it...

[/quote]

In response to your first question, if your going to say that, then we can just go the whole nine yards and say EVERYTHING is a leap of faith and a matter of belief. My justification for it is that for God to exist in the physical world as we do, the imperfect world, God needs to be made of things that can interact with us, things that can be a cause to make the effect. Im trying to think of an example... its like electric and concrete. Electricity cannot effect concrete unless it destroys it. It can be used to make it as well. God is electricity, and the finite world is the concrete. The electricity cannot react with the concrete, where as other organic chemicals could. You get what im saying? and as for the hair thing it has everything to do with it. Your saying to me that although God is this insanely perfect and powerful being, it rarely acts, it dosent destroy lucifer, it has imperfect qualities its a contradiciton by our language. and it links to my points above and below...which I will finish at the end..

So? God. Firstly, always ignore religion. Marxist is the best. Religion = way to control the masses. Its true. Yes, it provides other things, gives people hope and relief from the inevitable doom of death. It helps explain things we cannot, and hell it can actually give people drive and other great stuff. So THOUGH religion IS a God dam HUGE contradiction of itself, it has positive uses.

I personally believe IF God does exist, by some means beyond even my comprehension and the many philosophical minds that this planet has seen over the past 2000 years or more, then your relationship with it must be personal, but never real, because it can never be anything due to God's nature.

According to some beliefs, the relationship is personal. But this varies. I don't entirely understand what you mean by a "real" relationship, and how this relates to the nature of God. God's perfection does not preclude this relationship. I'm not sure what does....

As for the many philosophical minds this planet has produced, we have already stated that the nature of God is incomprehensible, and this does not change in proportion to the number of white-bearded philosophers you throw at it. The concept of God will always be incomprehensible. It is entirely up to you then whether you choose to believe or not.

The ONLY way for God to exist is to accept things far beyond our understanding, and to do away with religion, because despite its usefulness it does nothing good for God itself. So does God exist!? I bloody well dam hope so! But I seriously doubt it, and even if it did, whether it could actually do anything to help.

Why do you have to do away with religion to believe in God? Why does religion need to "do something good for God"?

Ultimately the question is unanswerable, by philosophy or by science, though I think debate is healthy.

Religion does not need to do anything for God, but Religion is a pile of useless crud filled with inadequacies, lies, contradictions and ill thought out uses of language for its prime deity. Id believe in the force before I believed in God through religion.

BUT! Back to the ultimate point. In the end by the definition of the words we use, the common concieved God cannot exist in the ways and methods described by religion, unless you do away with language, but doing away with the greater meaning of language to make sure the words of religion do not contradict themselves nullifies the very religion itself, because it follows a book written in language.

OOOOO! Can u feel it!

Thats the game! I wish you could all meet my old philosophy teacher, he taught me all this stuff, its what the philosophy society is looking into or some crap like that...

BUT! One thing I do agree with you on Grizzly is that the question is unanswerable.

[~Zekk~]

How can we know that our definition of "perfect" is not indeed imperfect, thus making this argument pointless. Though that only supports Sempers language flaw argument...I think...

And when has god ever talked directly anyway? As far as I can remember, he's only spoken by using mediums like as angels or other such spiritual/energy beings.

[unseen1]

GOD is the most stupid thing man have ever invented or created.And even more,it is the most dangeorus thing that came out of our mind.Idea killed many more people than any other did.Its the most costly project in our history that is running for over 10 000 years.It costed us more than all goverements combined together.It stoped our developement for 1000 years.
So my opinion is that religion is source of all evil if not all than 90% of all.I know it can be debated but for ones man sacrifice for his god can be sorrow for thousands of others.And still for some he will be hero for other religius terorist.Hence why religion is source of all evil.
Why GOD cannot exist as a perfect being Semper mentioned in his previous posts.I even dont want to go into all creationism and all other religion crap that are out there trying to survive.But will try to go into The man himself.

Perfect GOD:
-if he is perfect he cannot improve himself,if he cant improve himself he cant be perfect
-if he is perfect he can see into the future,if he can see into the future he can see his actions there.If he can see his actions he cant change them if he changes them he CANT see future
You can wrap and turn around these two sentences how ever and how much you like but in the end you cant get your god to be perfect.No matter what religion has to say about it they will only further wrap themselfs in ridiculness they allready are in.

Gnosis,imadeallofthisbutnotperfect GOD is just more stupid than a perfect one.God cannot be imperfect becouse if he is imperfect than he is not GOD(remeber RA from stargate ) he is some other lifeform we will get to known or we will never know him but i refused to call him GOD couse he made this.If we would to create AI how long would AI called us GODS before coming to conclusion he is more perfect then ourselfs.So if american natives called Kolumbo GOD we dont have to call some imperfect being who might or might not created us GOD.

Also GOD as you know it exist only 2000 years(5000 in jewish tribes) before that were imperfect god;Thor,Zeus etc.But dont those GODs sound like myth,good bedtime story?Dont they look like some higly advance civilisation?Whatever they look like they are dead as this one will be I sincerely hope and wish for?

I honestly think that all religion are stupid and all people supporting those belives are also stupid not to mention dangerous(no matter how small belive is with right circumsatnses it can grow to suicide bomber).This is not me being disrespectfull but If you would to go and mass someone with 50 mill assasins trained you would also called that guy stupid.

Richard Dawkins made a scale of beliver from 1 to 7 as 1 is total beliver 7 is non beliver.As him respect scientist leaves a really small window open for GOD I cant and am on 7 on that scale.

So OMOC If you are still searching pro and cons for your project read his book The god delusion.He presents many cons and pros for GOD.

[Theocritus]

no no no you silly people, you've all got it wrong.

Here is the true version of events as told by yours truly, The Almighty Beaver! *dun dun dun*

in the beginning there was nothing, and in nothing anything is possible (see hitchhikers guide to infinite improbability) and so a taking it upon his self The Almighty Beaver appeared, after questioning his existence for 13 parsecs (yes the distance) and having nothing better to do, at exactly 3:43 GMT +10 I charted and brought into existence the universe. Now this was quite an effort as you can imagine, I mean honestly an entire universe excreted in one push... well anyway I was quite tired so i slept for a long time. I only woke up a few days ago in fact, after pursing the universe for a bit i finally came across this planet (+100,000 k UP per day!!! lols...) Earth. Anyways i got hooked on this game called Stargate wars... that is untill i got an STI from entering a lion and playing with a 'bad wolf'. That'll teach me to go to Thors little world...So i have spent the last day at the clinic for ascended beings trying to get my mojo rising.

Anyway if you want to know i think i remember a god coming out, he was all energy and burtnt a bit... i'll get back to you with more later.


N.B. this isn't meant to offend anyone of religious back ground - please take it for what it is. Also some ideas have been adapted from various sources and names used without permission. Again don't take it too seriously its a froum.

guys and girls

[Skunky]

[Fear Of The Duck]

all of youse (with the possivle exception of zekk and grizzzzzzzly) cannot think outside the box. all of youse apply your narrowminded analysis (especialy unseen and semper) to something that by definition is unlimited and perfect, thus incomprehensible. so doesn't matter how hard ya try, ya won't get enywhere.
period.

as i said at the begining: this argument is pointless, was pointless and will be pointles.

sorry if i didnt put enough "z"s in "grizzzzzzly"

thnx to aasb for taking the mickey out of all this. this is the only way we can follow here.

[GrizzZzzly]

Let the Redebunkification begin...

OHHHHHHHHHKAY...wise guy.

Let the debunkification begin...

By common conception of all religions believing in God, God is a perfect being.

Because God is a perfect being it cannot exist or pertain qualities with/of the imperfect and finite. Otherwise it would be a direct contradiction. God cannot have limited size, age, power. It does not need legs, a spine, or a body, it cannot have any of them. It does not have a gender (gender is a imperfect attribute, a sign of imperfection.) IF God exist's to the idea religion thinks it can exist God is above any form of basic human comprehension. It cannot talk, It cannot communicate in any sense we could ever understand. Immediately the old testament of the bible is nullified by its own beliefs.

The nature of God is such that it is beyond human comprehension, but the concept of God itself is very much within human comprehension (which is why we are talking about it). Why should this restrict divine communication with humans? It cannot talk, true, because it does not have a mouth. That does not mean that it cannot give rise to sound percievable by humans. However that is not even the point. When God is said to have called down to humans, there are numerous interpretations: a real sound, a voice in one's mind, which may or may not be percieved to be a real voice etc. etc. You can't nullify the old testament by virtue of a communications error. That's the excuse train operators use for late trains around here, but this is the first time I've seen it in a theological context. Additionally, attempts to find some minor inconsistency in scripture to justify the nonexistence of God are normally fruitless, since the scripture is written for the very purpose to inspire belief in God.

It cannot talk because that is a finite attribute, because we have no more efficient way to communicate. By the very definition of language A perfect being cannot do and have imperfect attributes...its impossible because then its flawed and not perfect? No? Communication from God to humans is not divine because by your own creational ideas its impossible. God simply cannot exist as a perfect transcendent being in any way that can be linked to us. Its just not a possibility. Like I said, if you want to turn around and say God exist's beyond our comprehension, BUT can still be perfect and communicate and exist in some way in our imperfect world, then well. Your basically saying that the definitions of language are wrong.

I can very easily nullify the old testament with a communications error. I just did in my first post. How can you rely on something that lies? I mean if you WANT to believe in blatent lies and misconceptions then fair enough, but you cant deny that by our own language the very idea of God is fallable, especially when viewed through

The Dogmatic

Narrow view of a bible belt christian.

You havnt countered anything I said with any plausible argument.

So whats it gonna be? Language or God?

Let's go through this bit by bit.

Firstly, you don't have to reconfirm the fact that God can't "talk" using a conventional, birth-issued mouth. I've already made that point, and I think we're agreed. God, according to many believers, and scripture, has a number of ways to communicate with people, see my original post, to which I will add that many people believe that God communicates to them directly through their hearts. Throw your allegations of absurdity around as much as you want, but that's what people do believe.

I don't see why God can't use a language. I don't see why God can't use an "imperfect" language to communicate. Since that language is not a part of him, why should that make him imperfect? Additionally, any of these means of communication, which you may deem "imperfect" are also not any indication of the nature of God. You can't infer that God is imperfect because he uses imperfect means of communication because that would be like inferring that humans are imperfect through our use of the telephone. Additionally, I would argue that the use of an "imperfect" language or means of communication is not an "imperfect" act. By divine perfection, we should be less concerned with the means in which those actions are fulfilled, as those are limited to the physical world, but instead with nature of those actions.

But wait. If God is perfect, then sureley it can effect the finite and imperfect llevels of existence? Well no, because then its not perfect...oh dear. The idea of a completely perfect being, the way the bible and all God based religions imply CANNOT exist. It's impossible for such a thing to exist. You could say well thats just my limited immature thinking...well no, because thats like saying I have hair on my head and I have no hair on my head at the same time, just dam silly!

The idea that an infinite, perfect being cannot affect a finite, imperfect world is as much a belief as my belief in a God. You have no justification for this. And repeating the claim that a completely perfect being cannot exist will not make it any more true. As for your analogy about your hair, I don't see how it has any bearing on this whatsoever, but let me assure you that there are some crazier things in nature than what you have just mentioned. Particle-Wave duality for one....unless you understand it...

In response to your first question, if your going to say that, then we can just go the whole nine yards and say EVERYTHING is a leap of faith and a matter of belief. My justification for it is that for God to exist in the physical world as we do, the imperfect world, God needs to be made of things that can interact with us, things that can be a cause to make the effect. Im trying to think of an example... its like electric and concrete. Electricity cannot effect concrete unless it destroys it. It can be used to make it as well. God is electricity, and the finite world is the concrete. The electricity cannot react with the concrete, where as other organic chemicals could. You get what im saying? and as for the hair thing it has everything to do with it. Your saying to me that although God is this insanely perfect and powerful being, it rarely acts, it dosent destroy lucifer, it has imperfect qualities its a contradiciton by our language. and it links to my points above and below...which I will finish at the end..

God does not exist in the physical world. God is not made of things that can interact with us. God can intervene through things in this world (Jesus, angels apparently, floods, etc.), which he can affect supernaturally, i.e. in a way that is a) beyond our comprehension, and b) metaphysical (above and beyond the physical reality).

Additionally, God has no imperfect "qualities", partly because there are very few divine "qualities" that you or I can define (beyond omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.). This comes back to the problem of language. You can't limit God to the limits of our language (though, as already stated, there is no problem with God using a language).

So we have a pickle dont we. Only way dear old Yahwe can exist is if it aint perfect. In which case it is flawed. In which case people would lose faith. In which case God dies basically... long and painfully.

Next. We have the idea of free will. Determinism. Cause and Effect. NO FREE WILL. Does God plan out our destiny? Is the lord all powerful? Well erm..if he does..then how can we have free will? If 'he' has a plan for us? Oh dear....

Reread Genesis. In Christian theology at least, God only "plans out our destiny" if we put our faith in him. You have the right to be entirely unaffected by God. Additionally, infinite power on God's part does not preclude us from having free will. It would only do so if it were used contrary to our free will. As for the bearing of this argument on the existence on God, I'm not entirely sure where you're going....

This has no part on the existence of God, its just a kick in the teeth for it. Well planning out your destiny, is once again removing your free will. Its taking you in a direction that God wants, not what you want. If you think its what you want, then how can you be sure, thats faith I suppose. I never read the bible tbh..if I want to bore myself to death i'd just go watch a cricket game...

As I said, the Christian God does not plan your destiny. Unless you have faith in him (which you don't, so you don't have to worry...).

As for the Bible, if you're going to argue against a belief, you will need to understand what the belief is in the first place, otherwise you stand no chance...

So? God. Firstly, always ignore religion. Marxist is the best. Religion = way to control the masses. Its true. Yes, it provides other things, gives people hope and relief from the inevitable doom of death. It helps explain things we cannot, and hell it can actually give people drive and other great stuff. So THOUGH religion IS a God dam HUGE contradiction of itself, it has positive uses.

I personally believe IF God does exist, by some means beyond even my comprehension and the many philosophical minds that this planet has seen over the past 2000 years or more, then your relationship with it must be personal, but never real, because it can never be anything due to God's nature.

According to some beliefs, the relationship is personal. But this varies. I don't entirely understand what you mean by a "real" relationship, and how this relates to the nature of God. God's perfection does not preclude this relationship. I'm not sure what does....

As for the many philosophical minds this planet has produced, we have already stated that the nature of God is incomprehensible, and this does not change in proportion to the number of white-bearded philosophers you throw at it. The concept of God will always be incomprehensible. It is entirely up to you then whether you choose to believe or not.

The ONLY way for God to exist is to accept things far beyond our understanding, and to do away with religion, because despite its usefulness it does nothing good for God itself. So does God exist!? I bloody well dam hope so! But I seriously doubt it, and even if it did, whether it could actually do anything to help.

Why do you have to do away with religion to believe in God? Why does religion need to "do something good for God"?

Ultimately the question is unanswerable, by philosophy or by science, though I think debate is healthy.

Religion does not need to do anything for God, but Religion is a pile of useless crud filled with inadequacies, lies, contradictions and ill thought out uses of language for its prime deity. Id believe in the force before I believed in God through religion.

Inadequacy, lies, contradictions and ill thoughts. And yet I see no evidence.

There have been times where the Catholic Church has led the world astray, true. The debate about indulgences in 16th Century Europe, highlighted by Luther's 95 Theses, amongst others. That may be a religious inadequacy (albeit a now irrelevant one), but it shouldn't affect faith in the true God. It merely highlights human imperfection.

BUT! Back to the ultimate point. In the end by the definition of the words we use, the common concieved God cannot exist in the ways and methods described by religion, unless you do away with language, but doing away with the greater meaning of language to make sure the words of religion do not contradict themselves nullifies the very religion itself, because it follows a book written in language.

I have no doubt that scripture would be imperfect in describing God. Just look at the parabels. They're simplified stories, aimed at "the common people", intended to teach theological concepts. Does that make God imperfect? No! The intention of Scripture is not to define, or to describe God, and thus to limit him to the limits of human language, but to teach us how to follow God and how to show our faith.

OOOOO! Can u feel it!

Thats the game! I wish you could all meet my old philosophy teacher, he taught me all this stuff, its what the philosophy society is looking into or some crap like that...

BUT! One thing I do agree with you on Grizzly is that the question is unanswerable.

Philosophers have long abandoned attempts to attempt to prove/disprove the existence of God. There are arguments for and against, but don't expect a proof anytime soon.

I have to agree with Corran Horn, these attempts to find flaws in the perfection (and otherwise) of God are futile.

EDIT: I fixed the quotes

[GrizzZzzly]

Sorry for the double post.

GOD is the most stupid thing man have ever invented or created.And even more,it is the most dangeorus thing that came out of our mind.Idea killed many more people than any other did.Its the most costly project in our history that is running for over 10 000 years.It costed us more than all goverements combined together.It stoped our developement for 1000 years.
So my opinion is that religion is source of all evil if not all than 90% of all.I know it can be debated but for ones man sacrifice for his god can be sorrow for thousands of others.And still for some he will be hero for other religius terorist.Hence why religion is source of all evil.

If people want to kill themselves, they will find a reason for doing so. The fact that religion has been a scapegoat for war for millennia belies the fact that the true, ulterior motives are usually very secular indeed.

Why GOD cannot exist as a perfect being Semper mentioned in his previous posts.I even dont want to go into all creationism and all other religion crap that are out there trying to survive.But will try to go into The man himself.

Perfect GOD:
-if he is perfect he cannot improve himself,if he cant improve himself he cant be perfect
-if he is perfect he can see into the future,if he can see into the future he can see his actions there.If he can see his actions he cant change them if he changes them he CANT see future
You can wrap and turn around these two sentences how ever and how much you like but in the end you cant get your god to be perfect.No matter what religion has to say about it they will only further wrap themselfs in ridiculness they allready are in.

Your logic is flawed. You are confusing yourself.

If God is perfect, he cannot improve himself. If he can't improve himself, he must be perfect (because he can't improve himself). The inability to improve does not imply imperfection.

There are a number of ways of addressing the second point. The first is that God, by virtue of his perfection, will never need to change his actions. However, far more fundamentally, God is usually extratemporal, i.e. outside of time, just as he is outside the physical world. If you think about it, time is an aspect of the phsyical world, and thus God is not subject to it. Thus he can see/affect all parts of time simultaneously, and any "changes" he will be aware of "in real time", as it were.

Gnosis,imadeallofthisbutnotperfect GOD is just more stupid than a perfect one.God cannot be imperfect becouse if he is imperfect than he is not GOD(remeber RA from stargate ) he is some other lifeform we will get to known or we will never know him but i refused to call him GOD couse he made this.If we would to create AI how long would AI called us GODS before coming to conclusion he is more perfect then ourselfs.So if american natives called Kolumbo GOD we dont have to call some imperfect being who might or might not created us GOD.

God is not a "being". God does not exists in the physical world.

Also GOD as you know it exist only 2000 years(5000 in jewish tribes) before that were imperfect god;Thor,Zeus etc.But dont those GODs sound like myth,good bedtime story?Dont they look like some higly advance civilisation?Whatever they look like they are dead as this one will be I sincerely hope and wish for?

I honestly think that all religion are stupid and all people supporting those belives are also stupid not to mention dangerous(no matter how small belive is with right circumsatnses it can grow to suicide bomber).This is not me being disrespectfull but If you would to go and mass someone with 50 mill assasins trained you would also called that guy stupid.

Richard Dawkins made a scale of beliver from 1 to 7 as 1 is total beliver 7 is non beliver.As him respect scientist leaves a really small window open for GOD I cant and am on 7 on that scale.

So OMOC If you are still searching pro and cons for your project read his book The god delusion.He presents many cons and pros for GOD.

And then make sure to read the Dawkins Delusion. For all his biological genius, he should leave the existence of God to philosophers/theologians. We have already seen what happens when scientists attempt to answer questions concerning God: namely travesties like Intelligent Design.

[unseen1]

all of youse (with the possivle exception of zekk and grizzzzzzzly) cannot think outside the box. all of youse apply your narrowminded analysis (especialy unseen and semper) to something that by definition is unlimited and perfect, thus incomprehensible. so doesn't matter how hard ya try, ya won't get enywhere.
period.

as i said at the begining: this argument is pointless, was pointless and will be pointles.

sorry if i didnt put enough "z"s in "grizzzzzzly"

thnx to aasb for taking the mickey out of all this. this is the only way we can follow here.

Yes youre right its pointless like arguments for Santa or Easter bunny right?You do belive in those two right?Becouse Im narrow minded and cant think outside of box so those two must also be brought to our debate.

If people want to kill themselves, they will find a reason for doing so. The fact that religion has been a scapegoat for war for millennia belies the fact that the true, ulterior motives are usually very secular indeed.

Your GOD had 2000 years time to make things OK and failed miserably not only that it added over 1000 years of darkness.And no matter secular or no masses were brought together becouse of GOD,motives were unknown to them.

Your logic is flawed. You are confusing yourself.

If God is perfect, he cannot improve himself. If he can't improve himself, he must be perfect (because he can't improve himself). The inability to improve does not imply imperfection.

There are a number of ways of addressing the second point. The first is that God, by virtue of his perfection, will never need to change his actions. However, far more fundamentally, God is usually extratemporal, i.e. outside of time, just as he is outside the physical world. If you think about it, time is an aspect of the phsyical world, and thus God is not subject to it. Thus he can see/affect all parts of time simultaneously, and any "changes" he will be aware of "in real time", as it were.

But sole fact he does stuff makes improvements for him.He didnt create everything in a instant.He created Adam then Eve.So he improved or added something that previus wasnt there.So when improving that he also improved himself.Becouse he created time for us,he willingly or unwillingly got cought there.We can messure that time now,for us time exist.Nor you or him cant ignore that.He can play Evans allmighty and eradicate every awareness of time in us but we will still perish all he will change and all he will done will be deception but time line will still be there and he will be on it.Only solution would be to eradicate all of this and pretend this never happened but then again this would also be another deception.
Again Im talking as if he isnt above time,i know he is yesterday,tomorow...now.But when he created time,for us he got cought in time.So I know he created Earth 8000 years ago and he stuck here ever since not being able to leave becouse if he does he will be imperfect hence he will lose his tittle.

Gnosis,imadeallofthisbutnotperfect GOD is just more stupid than a perfect one.God cannot be imperfect becouse if he is imperfect than he is not GOD(remeber RA from stargate ) he is some other lifeform we will get to known or we will never know him but i refused to call him GOD couse he made this.If we would to create AI how long would AI called us GODS before coming to conclusion he is more perfect then ourselfs.So if american natives called Kolumbo GOD we dont have to call some imperfect being who might or might not created us GOD.

God is not a "being". God does not exists in the physical world.

Its not matter where or what GOD is.I just wanted to cover the other,unofficial religion.Private,my own.
"I dont belive in catholic god but do belive in some old papa up there."
Its just plain stupid!
Why?
Becouse I belive in Vger!
Isnt this also stupid.Well for you no becouse you belive in one for me both sentences are stupid.
If you say GOD isnt a being how you know he didnt programme us to think so,like we would programme AI to keep it under our control?

And then make sure to read the Dawkins Delusion. For all his biological genius, he should leave the existence of God to philosophers/theologians. We have already seen what happens when scientists attempt to answer questions concerning God: namely travesties like Intelligent Design.

Well thats a real argument,sadly always is.If you run out them flame and keep strong faith.
I suggested this to OMOC becouse he indeed shows pro and cons in his book.OMOC was searching for them.If you say its bias then he might do the same but nontheless he will have something to write about for his project.

he should leave the existence of God to philosophers/theologians

Theologians....you serius.Why them?Whats so special about them other than that that all they have ever studied ussually spins around one book.
Who made them GODS?
Oh yes you say secular I say religius right?

Althou I wanted to leave christain mambo jumbo out of my arguments I couldnt helped myself whem reading this:

Inadequacy, lies, contradictions and ill thoughts. And yet I see no evidence

Its obvius you are firm beliver in The Book so lets try that book.

Your book says your GOD is everything but bad.To be short he is LOVE.But perfect ones cant be aware of love and if they do love is same as hate for them.Couse they are perfect and out of bonds they can love and hate at the same time.Well good luck when that hits you.Well at least book says so.
Then book GOD needs armies to detain Satan,he leads them to battle.Another point of imperfection etc.etc.etc
Book says LOVE,GOD say genocid,book says LOVE GOD say death to your son,book says LOVE GOD says stone your wife...infact sad man that Abraham.Or did he got a touch of that GODs LOVE/HATE stuff Book says LOVE GOD say slain your own people.
Well many Ill thoughts there,even evil intentions GOD had with some of the poeple.
I personaly like Zeus more,all he wanted to do is have sex...

What also bothers me at belivers are request from scientists.Althou you all belive in mambo jumbo yet from science you search hard bullet proff evidence.Well its right to do so thou?I also do it but not to prove that they are wrong and GOD exists but to find real answer.
What bothers me also use of science in proving of GOD?
Becouse of the belives we had to reinvent concrete and yet now you dare to use science to prove there is GOD or even worse use science to prove science that is wrong.
What is the diffirence betwen science being wrong and you is that science learns from its mistakes and evolves as for you you can just wrap more mabmo jumbo around you and say it that Im no beliver and will never know what your talking about.

And finally to all of you that might be offended when I call a beliver stupid.I dont want to offend anyone but that is my view point and I honestly think so:
If you belive in GOD you are in my eyes stupid and if he maybe speaks to you when you are in church etc then you are mature enough to go to hospital!
Why?
Well i explainded it numerous times?
I belive in big green beaver as a creationst of all!
And when Im near water I fell his presence and more I fell he is talking to me...
Need I say more how you look to me in my eyes.

Now back to religion using science to prove GOD.I personally never managed to watch more than 3 minutes of these movie becouse....well Its just sad in my eyes.Not that evolution might be wront and that Idiot be right but just becouse he says:

I read,read,read!!!

Well then read the hole book not just the stuff that is written on their covers!!!!!!!

I ask,ask,ask!!!

Well then hear them what they have to say to the end not just hear first two words!!!

OMOC if your still looking for some pro and cons here is more stuff for you(link is in the spolier)
[spoiler]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8661689910541626498&q=Why+the+Big+Bang+is+Wrong+duration%3Along&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0[/spoiler]

Well this was way to long but couldnt helped my self and here is another favourite one of mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[~Zekk~]

Your GOD had 2000 years time to make things OK and failed miserably not only that it added over 1000 years of darkness.And no matter secular or no masses were brought together becouse of GOD,motives were unknown to them.

God is not a ruler, at least not in that sense. We have free will, we use it, and we make a mess of things doing so. You cannot blame God for what we ourselves have done.

But sole fact he does stuff makes improvements for him.He didnt create everything in a instant.He created Adam then Eve.So he improved or added something that previus wasnt there.So when improving that he also improved himself.Becouse he created time for us,he willingly or unwillingly got cought there.We can messure that time now,for us time exist.Nor you or him cant ignore that.He can play Evans allmighty and eradicate every awareness of time in us but we will still perish all he will change and all he will done will be deception but time line will still be there and he will be on it.Only solution would be to eradicate all of this and pretend this never happened but then again this would also be another deception.
Again Im talking as if he isnt above time,i know he is yesterday,tomorow...now.But when he created time,for us he got cought in time.So I know he created Earth 8000 years ago and he stuck here ever since not being able to leave becouse if he does he will be imperfect hence he will lose his tittle.

Where is the improvement? Time does not exist, it is only an illusion created by humans, out of our desire for structure and order. Time does not apply to God, nor does any other physical limitation.

Its not matter where or what GOD is.I just wanted to cover the other,unofficial religion.Private,my own.
"I dont belive in catholic god but do belive in some old papa up there."
Its just plain stupid!
Why?
Becouse I belive in Vger!
Isnt this also stupid.Well for you no becouse you belive in one for me both sentences are stupid.
If you say GOD isnt a being how you know he didnt programme us to think so,like we would programme AI to keep it under our control?

What and where God is matters completely. You see the existence of God only as stupid because you cannot accept that there is more to the universe than the physical world you see around you. Perhaps seeing is believing, but if that belief were reality, our world would be seriously screwed up by a few mental patients, as well as at least my own imagination, I assure you...

As to the programing bit, that goes back to the point that: How can you prove that this world is even real at all, and not just some alien high school girls wacky dream?

Theologians....you serius.Why them?Whats so special about them other than that that all they have ever studied ussually spins around one book.
Who made them GODS?
Oh yes you say secular I say religius right?

Because scientists tend to be closed minded people, who think only inside the box. Philosophers tend to be open minded people, who think mostly outside the box. Our world is the box. God exists outside the box. So, who has the better chance of finding him first?

Althou I wanted to leave christain mambo jumbo out of my arguments I couldnt helped myself whem reading this:

Inadequacy, lies, contradictions and ill thoughts. And yet I see no evidence

Its obvius you are firm beliver in The Book so lets try that book.

Your book says your GOD is everything but bad.To be short he is LOVE.But perfect ones cant be aware of love and if they do love is same as hate for them.Couse they are perfect and out of bonds they can love and hate at the same time.Well good luck when that hits you.Well at least book says so.
Then book GOD needs armies to detain Satan,he leads them to battle.Another point of imperfection etc.etc.etc
Book says LOVE,GOD say genocid,book says LOVE GOD say death to your son,book says LOVE GOD says stone your wife...infact sad man that Abraham.Or did he got a touch of that GODs LOVE/HATE stuff Book says LOVE GOD say slain your own people.
Well many Ill thoughts there,even evil intentions GOD had with some of the poeple.
I personaly like Zeus more,all he wanted to do is have sex...

God isn't all about love. That's a mistake on most religionists part. For proof, just look at sodom and gamora, or at least...whats left of them. The examples you gave, were (as I was tought) intended to be tests mostly, in order for those people (namely Abraham in this case) to prove they're faith. But why should God throw love and hate at the same time? If God is perfect, then God has perfect control.

What also bothers me at belivers are request from scientists.Althou you all belive in mambo jumbo yet from science you search hard bullet proff evidence.Well its right to do so thou?I also do it but not to prove that they are wrong and GOD exists but to find real answer.
What bothers me also use of science in proving of GOD?
Becouse of the belives we had to reinvent concrete and yet now you dare to use science to prove there is GOD or even worse use science to prove science that is wrong.
What is the diffirence betwen science being wrong and you is that science learns from its mistakes and evolves as for you you can just wrap more mabmo jumbo around you and say it that Im no beliver and will never know what your talking about.

Why shouldn't science be used to prove God? Science is merely a tool, a device used to explain things. God is the biggest mystery humanity has, so why shouldn't the strongest tool of explanation be used?

And finally to all of you that might be offended when I call a beliver stupid.I dont want to offend anyone but that is my view point and I honestly think so:
If you belive in GOD you are in my eyes stupid and if he maybe speaks to you when you are in church etc then you are mature enough to go to hospital!
Why?
Well i explainded it numerous times?
I belive in big green beaver as a creationst of all!
And when Im near water I fell his presence and more I fell he is talking to me...
Need I say more how you look to me in my eyes.

If you believe a big green beaver is God, then you have the right too. It's not stupid. A little strange perhaps, especially by society standards, but not stupid. We have free will, and we will use it to believe in, or do, whatever we want. You said in another thread that the biggest cause of war was disrespect towards other religions--well, your being the most disrespectful, most closed minded person here. Your also being the most aggressive, in saying that religionists are stupid. Thus, I am led to believe it is people like you, who are in your own words "disrespectful", that is the main cause of war. Or am I missing something?

EDIT: Wait, the last bit wasn't about you after all (I went back and checked, you weren't the one in the other thread), but the point kinda still stands...

[unseen1]

Check out my first post in this thread and you will see what Im talking about.Im not narrow minded I just got to some conclusions before you and belive me you will also get there eventually.But now have no time and will answer you as soon as I get back from work.

[~Zekk~]

I didn't say you were narrow minded, a narrow minded person is someone who looks forward with a limited view. I said you were closed minded, a closed minded person is someone who has come to a conclusion on a subject and refuses to accept anything different regarding that subject.

[Londo Mollari]

well...i don't have time to read all the huge posts atm

but one thing caught my eye ~LH~ said that atoms cannot be created or destroyed, and that the same applies for energy.

However, every type of matter has its opposite, anti-matter. These can be reacted together to cancel out and emit radiation (gamma i think)

so, why should the same not be true for energy?

This also leads to an interesting point. If god is not physical, he must be a force, or energy, in order to influence the physical plane. If he is energy, then there must be a type of energy capable of destroying him. An Anti-God being if u like.


WAIT, if god can be destroyed by an anti-god, surely he/she/it is not Allpowerful and can't truely be worth worshipping?

[~Zekk~]

How many times must it be said before it is understood?

The laws of physics as humanity currently understands them do not apply to God.

Or perhaps -God did exist at one time, and it collided with +God... maybe that was the Big Bang? J/K