An argument for the non-existance of deity

Blackguard

As is occams.

Thus he promotes the idea that no HUMAN or
HUMAN RELIGION. Can define a possible god to other
humans beyond pure speculation.

No human or organisation has come up with anything
more than 'I believe it beause i desire to believe it'.
Thats fine..Occam supports fully the inherent right of all to believe
what they wish.

But when organisations educate children with such 'speculation'
and call it fact.
When parents say to their children
'Yes there is a god'
instead of
'I believe there is a god'
That is what occam calls evil.
Removing that evil.
.IS THE POINT OF IT

Occam

And occam coins a new term.
he is
'Religiously Challenged'

 

Mati

LOL..well said

Occam

 

God damn, man.

*FOR THE LAST F***ING TIME*

I am not saying that NOTHING exists outside of all logic.

I'm just saying that no GOD exists outside of all logic.

Because if a god exists at all, that god must obviously be able to be interpreted within logic, which means, that the god MUST have some structure, which means it CANNOT exist without logic.

Logic and definition must be present for existance. Logic alone, nor definition alone, give existance.

God MUST have a definition if he can be known in this universe. A definition is a logical structure, and because it's logical, it requires logic to exist.

Isn't it? The idea that a deity exists outside of all logic *IS A LOGIC-DERIVED CONCEPT ITSELF*. You can use logic to defeat a logic-derived concept.

That's *exactly* what I've been saying.

That's a weak argument ... diests fail to acknolwedge the state of actual reality, and attribute it all to an illogical concept that they call "God."

I believe in absolute values; not absolute constructs. I believe in the "1's and 0's" of the universe.

Something IS out there that is absolute. But it's no god, which is what I am arguing.

 

At what point to you go from "I believe the earth is roughly spherical" to "The earth is roughly spherical?

There is a God. "I believe there is a God" seems to imply that it is just an idea in my own mind, rather than an objective reality.

 

Sorry, I was implying GOD; I should have said GOD; I just get tired of using the same old worn-out word GOD.

I agree with you entirely, but they don't. They can't!!

With me yes, but they can't conceed that about their GOD.

They can't conceed that their GOD was cobbled together over centuries to serve the biological and deterministic logic of their psycho-sexual politics.

They can't, because their EGO is doing the job it's logically designed to do.

The EGO is hard at work repressing from ourselves, and deceptively hiding from others, our true Primate Psycho-sexual motives

You can logically argue your point all night long, and they'll still insist that their GOD is ultimately beyond logic.

They have to; they have nothing else, so they'll cling to that until their Psycho-Sexual energy is back in ballance.

So don't waste your breath preaching to the choir.

What we have here is not an epistemical issue.

What we have here is a mental health issue.

You sound like a true believer to me!

 

Kharakov

You know exactly what occam means.

Are you honestly suggesting that your belief in your god.
[which is your BELIEF..for you canot show it to be a fact
as you can with a spherical earth]
Should be conditioned into a open minded child who will take
a parents word as FACT.

Are you afraid that apon maturity they may not believe what you believe?

There is no difference between you saying 'there is a god'
and ....'i believe there is a god'
You cannot show 'there is a god' to be a fact. [objectively real]
Thus it means the SAME to occam as 'i believe there is a god'.

Occam

 

Lol, true ...

Though I'm not worried about whether or not they acknowledge their defeat, rather I'm worried just about defeating the idea.

A believer in something concrete? Well, yeah! Just not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.

 

Maybe.

belief:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
fact:something that has actual existence

God's existence is a fact. Calling God's existence a belief has a certain negative implication to it, because of all of the false beliefs out there.

I grew out of taking my parents word as fact long ago. Didn't you?

No. They will believe as God causes them to believe. Nothing more, nothing less. Be they atheists, buddhists, christians, or people who know what is going on, they are only going to be what God causes them to be.

There is a difference. Belief has negative implications as I said before.

Only the earth's existence as a spherical object shows that the earth is spherical. People didn't know the earth was a sphere for quite some time, despite living upon it. It's not that the people who thought the earth was flat were stupid, it's just that they they didn't have enough evidence to know the truth.

Only God's existence as an existent entity shows that God exists. Some people still do not know God exists, despite living within God. It's not that they are stupid, they just don't have enough evidence yet.

It's apparent to me that people need to have a certain amount of experience with/of God to even begin to understand the facts. I think it's easier to learn that the earth is a sphere than it is to learn that God exists. There are so many different things you need to learn before you can even begin to comprehend God's existence.

Well, at some point Occam, what you labeled as a belief becomes labeled as a fact, simply because it is foolish to imply doubt about something that so many have seen evidence for.

 

Kharakov

Yes and did you notice..." examination of evidence'

There is no evidence that occam, or apparently religion itself
can point to. Thats why the faithfull MUST be just that.

Occam believes there is 'indicative evidence'.
But that does not mean fact.

Show me your god !!!!!

cant?

Disagree, Occam thinks humans should have a certain amount of experience with the history and psychology of man. Then they can
base any understanding they may come to about a god on that
which tries to define what we invented to explain everything.

GOD is a THEORY....
An open theory. like time , evolution, and gravity.

Yes..If it IS fact...It will be labled as such.
You have yet to convince this reasoning being that it is the case.
As occam has stated. A 'god' is quite possible. In fact, required by evolution.
But he will not say something IS.
When it MAY NOT

And lastly, occam will DOUBT ANYTHING HIS METHOD DOUBTS.
And your statements about god are up there at the top of the list.
Why.
Because life has taught occam.
Never believe one with no doubts.
And NEVER believe one who says we should not doubt.
As you did.

Occam

 

Why did I italicize that portion of the definition?

You see the evidence yet do not percieve what it means. A lot like the ancients who thought the planets revolved around the earth in wierd patterns, instead of around the sun.

Technically, all evidence is indicative.

You are like the dog in bugs bunny cartoons who asks bugs where the bunny went. Which way did he go George, which way did he go?

God is right in your face and you don't know it.

Ok. That helps.

Ohh. I think you can have theories about God, just like you can have theories about gravity.

You are wonderful.

Does your method doubt itself?

Well. I didn't say 'we should not doubt'. I very much think you should doubt anyones judgement that God does not exist, and doubt the judgement of many who do believe in God, but believe wrongly.

I said "Well, at some point Occam, what you labeled as a belief becomes labeled as a fact, simply because it is foolish to imply doubt about something that so many have seen evidence for."

I think you will agree that 'the earth orbits the sun' is a (reasonably accurate)fact, or do you still call it a belief? Calling it a belief implies doubt, and I don't think that is appropriate when teaching. Teaching a child "We believe the earth orbits the sun, but it might not because we do not know everything" is just going to confuse the child, is it not?

 

but i think that when people say, "gods exist outside of all logic"
what they mean is, "gods exist outside of my logic"
your argument obviously makes sense, where there is a god there has to be a logic for him to exist in; i think people are speaking from themselves.
who says gods exist outside of ALL logic anyway?

if i lived during 'flat earth' time, the *fact* that the earth is spherical still existed, but i could not say "it is a fact that the earth is spherical" right? wouldn't it only be right for me to say "i believe - until i get some photographs taken from the iss earthcam or other evidence fitting my method"
so i'm thinking... perhaps i'm living in god but not recognizing god as god because i'm lacking godcam photos or a way to measure god. i can't say that god's existence is a fact, though it may be.
i'd agree with occam that it is only appropriate to say "believe", regardless of negative connotations, when factual evidence is currently unavailable.

 

but isn't it a labelled a fact once it has satisfied the requirements of a logical method that was already stated?
you could say, we looked for factual evidence to back up the spherical earth belief, and that was fulfilled. so according to method, it is fact.
but you would have to say, "according to our logical method there is yet no factual evidence proving god's existence, and so we cannot use the term fact in that regard.."

[aside] i'm wondering about the term 'fact' - how can we ever say anything is fact? it fulfils our method, but what does our method fulfil? and besides that, what objective evidence do i have that the earth is spherical? hm. someone help me.

 

Yes...It is a self doubting system.
It's job is to place probabillity on information.

"In the human world, 99.8% is opinion, .2% is fact." [unknown author]

A method is needed to discern what opinion is probable.
And what is not.
That the stars are holes in black velvet. Is improbable.
That humans have cloned a human. -indeterminte
That Humanity landed on the moon..Is probable.

That same method defines your god as you have stated it.
As indeterminate. Insufficient data.

And once again, it comes down to evidence.

In teaching a child about the earth and the sun.
We ALL feel its warmth on our faces.
Most can see it.
We ALL stand on the earth, can touch and see it.
There is a horizon...because it is round.
ALL our observation agrees with what we understand.

The god you say exists..
Has not shown to occam or apparently billions of others.
Any sign of doing so. [existant phenomena]
This does not mean your god does not exist.
It means that occam cannot not take your words
as being FACT. By themselves.
And never will.
The observation of the world.
Does not match what you say.
For no god is observed.

You say the evidence is before occam, but he cannot see it.

Were?

Occam

PS..And occam
"very much doubts anyones judgement that god does not exist"
No human judgement is correct in this as no human knows what exits in all reality.
And this can be applied to the EITHER side in the arguement.
For agnosticism is not a side.
It is a state of admitted ignorance.

 

Actually, I doubt that ...

 

Whatever. You're right, there is no God.

 

Kharakov

No..Occam only posits an opinion.
There may or maynot be such a thing as you define it.

His arguement was that you stated it exists as a fact.
As much a fact as the sun, earth and gravity.
Yet cannot show it to do so [exist] in the same maner as
the sun,earth and gravity.

This may be a small thing to you.

But occams reason [and the method built by reason]does not allow factuallity without existant supporting phenomena.

Occam stated elsewhere that he believes evolution 'requires'
the existance of a being/race we would call god.
Ironic no?

Occam

 

Hiky

Do you now !!

As a mater of interest. Occam watched the command module orbit the moon in 1969 through a 10 inch reflector...Bit of empirical second hand info for U.

Occam

 

Wishy washy reasoning will get you nowhere. There is a God. If you do not know this fact yet, it is because God has not revealed it to you, perhaps because God has not (yet) made you want to know about God. I'd compare God not revealing God's existence to you to a parent who does not potty train there child because the child is happy as it is, and the parent does not have the desire to make the child feel bad (punish it if it does not go to the potty instead of going in it's pants) until it is absolutely necessary for the childs well being.

God is.

Of course. God is more than the sun, earth and gravity. These are but part of what God does. Do not even look at your own actions as seperate from Gods.

It isn't. Everything is important, even the things I dismiss.

Same with mine. To "detect" God, you must have a standard of measurement that allows measurement within existing phenomena (which includes your own mind as a creation of God).

 

Kharakov

That first statement says it all.

Occams reasoning is based in reality.
It does not allow occam to believe in a thing unless

THERE IS REASON TO DO SO.
THERE IS SOMETHING THAT EXISTS TO BELIEVE IN.

How is that 'wishy/washy'

In occams life
the only REAL THING about your religious description of god that
has been shown to be real
Is that humans believe it.
A million people shouting a percieved truth in occams face will not make him SEE, anything but shouted words.

When your god attains the reality of a simple stone picked from the ground
THEN
occam will give credence.

Occam

 

The longevity of this thread is very suggestive evidence supporting the existance of Spirit........why else would it refuse to die? I am amazed at it's legs... I have no problem seeing the world as having room for atheists to be perfectly correct, and theists to be just as correct..... We all have our own paths to walk.
unbelievable staying power................
wow.