There is no God

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I don't find any significant point in trying to decipher whether it exists or not. You will either believe or won't, but you will never know whether you feel it or not and using this world as evidence will never work because the illogical cannot be supported by the logical. This does not mean that the illogical does not exist, but we don't know the premise upon which it works.

(I believe in something akin to God)

 

[garbage]

has anyone asked everyone else to "define God" yet? Because that's kind of a necessary step.

edit: nevermind, it was in the first reply

 

[Aquarelle]

I did. Did you understand that I asked Victor a simple question, "Victor, are you Catholic?" and this is what I got (see Victor's quote below)...
(And that's why I responded trying to use his communication style. It was jolly good fun. I hope he at least smiled.)




[MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION]: The issue isn't whether Victor's post made sense. The issue was that his post was comical because he rambled on (which really wasn't an issue, I just wanted Victor to relax). I asked him a simple question, "are you Catholic?" He answers it on the first line with three words "I am agnostic" (above) and the remaining 95% of his post was a dance around that; touching on random things. It was like he lost control of his mouth and seemed totally unconcerned with the present reality. In earlier posts, he appeared to despise being asked what scriptures his comments on Mary came from. He immediately became defensive/defiant. He never took the direct route to simply answer that. All he had to say is "I don't know". Why didn't he do that? I'm guessing he felt like we might devalue his thoughts or feelings if he didn't have the scriptures to support them. And that wasn't my goal. I sincerely wanted to understand him. I was playing with him a little to get him to relax so he *would* feel more comfortable, so take the word "stupid" with a grain of salt. Read the thread.

Yeah, I did read the thread, but thanks for the very helpful advice. I was just stating that his post didn't sound stupid or rambling at all to me; as you point out, he answered your question in the first line. Doesn't he have the right to expound upon his point? Surely if one was expected to simply answer the question and no more, forums would get pretty dull.

I hardly see how calling someone's post stupid would get them to relax and feel comfortable... but maybe that's just my skewed worldview talking. After all, I'm an agnostic, too.

 

[A window to the soul]

Yeah, I did read the thread, but thanks for the very helpful advice.

You're welcome.

I was just stating that his post didn't sound stupid or rambling at all to me; as you point out, he answered your question in the first line. Doesn't he have the right to expound upon his point?

Yes.

Surely if one was expected to simply answer the question and no more, forums would get pretty dull.

Agreed.

I hardly see how calling someone's post stupid would get them to relax and feel comfortable... but maybe that's just my skewed worldview talking. After all, I'm an agnostic, too.

k.

 

[citizen cane]

 

[A window to the soul]

I hardly see how calling someone's post stupid would get them to relax and feel comfortable...

Whoa there, now don't get me in trouble. I called *my* post stupid and I was both relaxed and comfortable with that. Durn I almost missed a skewed fact.

-->click to view famous post #96<--

 

[freeeekyyy]

Gotta love arrogance...


^referring to the OP, not anybody who posted more recently...

 

[A window to the soul]

Gotta love arrogance...

So much for the afterglow. -sighs-

Edit: [MENTION=9331]freeeekyyy[/MENTION]:

 

[Santosha]

What if God transcends logic?

"All logic depends on axioms (although in practice, they are more often hidden assumptions which have subconsciously accumulated, that are subjective and have been influenced by many experiences and suggestions from elsewhere). This constitutes a body of knowledge which is relative and subjective, and a limited frame of reference, which can conflict with other frames of reference. As the knowledge is subjective (and therefor incomplete) it is currently foundational but transient in nature. We only have limited physical senses, and at any time a partial insight into what reality in essence really is. God is not subject to such constraints, because God is a mystery that lies beneath all the assumptions. He is not in opposition to logic. It's just that logic is only a tool, that kind of depends on where someone is at a given time. "

 

[Santosha]

What if God transcends logic?

"All logic depends on axioms (although in practice, they are more often hidden assumptions which have subconsciously accumulated, that are subjective and have been influenced by many experiences and suggestions from elsewhere). This constitutes a body of knowledge which is relative and subjective, and a limited frame of reference, which can conflict with other frames of reference. As the knowledge is subjective (and therefor incomplete) it is currently foundational but transient in nature. We only have limited physical senses, and at any time a partial insight into what reality in essence really is. God is not subject to such constraints, because God is a mystery that lies beneath all the assumptions. He is not in opposition to logic. It's just that logic is only a tool, that kind of depends on where someone is at a given time. "

I have always been far more skeptical of those that attempt to describe or define god, than god.

 

[swordpath]

Gotta love arrogance...


^referring to the OP, not anybody who posted more recently...

V V V

I don't find any significant point in trying to decipher whether it exists or not. You will either believe or won't, but you will never know whether you feel it or not and using this world as evidence will never work because the illogical cannot be supported by the logical. This does not mean that the illogical does not exist, but we don't know the premise upon which it works.

^ ^ ^This.

And I'm actually an Agnostic that leans Atheist (despite the OP which seems to indicate I'm vehemently Atheist).

 

[Kraska]

God doesn't solve that problem at all. If God created the universe, what created God? Either you answer:
a) God wasn't created, he always existed. (to which I respond, okay, then if things can always exist, why can't the universe have always existed?)
b) God was the first thing to exist, he came from nothing. (to which I respond, why couldn't the universe come from nothing?)
or c) God created time. (to which I respond, why couldn't the big bang have created time?)

The problem is the question itself -- what was before the big bang -- it's set up to be unanswerable or to cause infinite regress.

That wasn't what I said. You are avoiding the question. What I said is that the atheists, agnostics or whatever you call youself came up with the conclusion that there is no God without even having the most basic answers. This is what I find naive.

 

[Sniffles]

What if God transcends logic?

"All logic depends on axioms (although in practice, they are more often hidden assumptions which have subconsciously accumulated, that are subjective and have been influenced by many experiences and suggestions from elsewhere). This constitutes a body of knowledge which is relative and subjective, and a limited frame of reference, which can conflict with other frames of reference. As the knowledge is subjective (and therefor incomplete) it is currently foundational but transient in nature. We only have limited physical senses, and at any time a partial insight into what reality in essence really is. God is not subject to such constraints, because God is a mystery that lies beneath all the assumptions. He is not in opposition to logic. It's just that logic is only a tool, that kind of depends on where someone is at a given time. "

This might help you:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/nattheol.html

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

That wasn't what I said. You are avoiding the question. What I said is that the atheists, agnostics or whatever you call youself came up with the conclusion that there is no God without even having the most basic answers. This is what I find naive.

What are the basic answers?

 

[Nicodemus]

That wasn't what I said. You are avoiding the question. What I said is that the atheists, agnostics or whatever you call youself came up with the conclusion that there is no God without even having the most basic answers. This is what I find naive.

Do you agree with the conclusion that there is no luminiferous aether?

 

[Qlip]

What if God transcends logic?

"All logic depends on axioms (although in practice, they are more often hidden assumptions which have subconsciously accumulated, that are subjective and have been influenced by many experiences and suggestions from elsewhere). This constitutes a body of knowledge which is relative and subjective, and a limited frame of reference, which can conflict with other frames of reference. As the knowledge is subjective (and therefor incomplete) it is currently foundational but transient in nature. We only have limited physical senses, and at any time a partial insight into what reality in essence really is. God is not subject to such constraints, because God is a mystery that lies beneath all the assumptions. He is not in opposition to logic. It's just that logic is only a tool, that kind of depends on where someone is at a given time. "

Exactly. I always assumed that if somebody was responsible for creating logic and physics that they would be beyond their creation, in a different class of 'existence'. The thing is, it is useless attempting to describing such a thing and even more useless debating it.

 

[Kraska]

Do you agree with the conclusion that there is no luminiferous aether?

What's that? Sorry I'm not very good at chemistry.

 

[Nicodemus]

What's that? Sorry I'm not very good at chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

 

[Kraska]

What are the basic answers?

Well I'm a very organized guy. I like to take things step by step. The basic answers would be to know everything about the starting point.

 

[Kraska]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

If the studies proved that the theory is wrong. Then it's wrong.