Org Mobile Site
Thread: There is no "God".
Sorry to break the news; it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Sorry to break the news; it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
Well if there is a God he'll prevent the Salford Red Sox from making it 19. I guess we will find out soon enough. Sorry to break the news; it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Well if there is a God he'll prevent the Salford Red Sox from making it 19. I guess we will find out soon enough.
Don't they call this the Problem of Evil?Well if there is a God he'll prevent the Salford Red Sox from making it 19. I guess we will find out soon enough.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Sorry to break the news; it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
OK, you know what, despite your churlish topic I'll bite.Sorry to break the news; it's true.
And Liverpool will be a mid-table side at best for years to come. You know it's true.
Wrong.
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
So you are saying there is no God because you are so upset about Liverpool's fate? 
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
By the same token then, 'no God' must necessarily exist, otherwise one could not suggest that 'No God' does not exist, because otherwise it would be impossible to have this dicussion."God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
Is "No God" merely an idea, or not the Creator of the universe, or not an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
Henceforward, I shall demand we teach this controversy at school: does God not exist, or is he not an insignificant microbe?
I can think of no greater nothing than there not being any god. Reality is always greater than what we can conceive of. Therefore, there must necessarily not exist any god. 
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
By the same token then, 'no God' must necessarily exist, otherwise one could not suggest that 'No God' does not exist, because otherwise it would be impossible to have this dicussion.
Is "No God" merely an idea, or not the Creator of the universe, or not an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
Henceforward, I shall demand we teach this controversy at school: does God not exist, or is he not an insignificant microbe?
Clever, but silly. Your "no God" is a rejection of "God", not a new concept in itself.By the same token then, 'no God' must necessarily exist, otherwise one could not suggest that 'No God' does not exist, because otherwise it would be impossible to have this dicussion.
Is "No God" merely an idea, or not the Creator of the universe, or not an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
Henceforward, I shall demand we teach this controversy at school: does God not exist, or is he not an insignificant microbe?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
I can think of no greater nothing than there not being any god. Reality is always greater than what we can conceive of. Therefore, there must necessarily not exist any god.
Cleverer, and not denied by theists - except we're still talking about the humanely concieved concept "God" and not the existence of an actual God.I can think of no greater nothing than there not being any god. Reality is always greater than what we can conceive of. Therefore, there must necessarily not exist any god.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
OK, you know what, despite your churlish topic I'll bite.
Wrong.
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
god is a concept!OK, you know what, despite your churlish topic I'll bite.
Wrong.
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Clever, but silly. Your "no God" is a rejection of "God", not a new concept in itself.
Cleverer, and not denied by theists - except we're still talking about the humanely concieved concept "God" and not the existence of an actual God.
so you cant actually say that god exists as well, which you did in your first post, you can only say that the human idea of god exists. only if that human idea of god would be identical to the actual (existence of) God, you could maintain that position.Clever, but silly. Your "no God" is a rejection of "God", not a new concept in itself.
Cleverer, and not denied by theists - except we're still talking about the humanely concieved concept "God" and not the existence of an actual God.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
so you cant actually say that god exists as well, which you did in your first post, you can only say that the human idea of god exists. only if that human idea of god would be identical to the actual (existence of) God, you could maintain that position.
No, I said '"God" clearly exists' not 'God clearly exists.'so you cant actually say that god exists as well, which you did in your first post, you can only say that the human idea of god exists. only if that human idea of god would be identical to the actual (existence of) God, you could maintain that position.
Of course God is a concept, so is my cup of coffee - the question is how closely that concept matches our actual reality.
ok. my mistake then.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
ok. my mistake then.
I merely sought to point up the basic falicy in HoreTore's opener, not to mention his somewhat cowardly refusal to remove the quotation marks and object to an actual idea rather than a word.ok. my mistake then.
I think is was Lord Sacchs who said, "You know that God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."
honestly i think horetore just hates liverpool.
the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
because you cant prove it doesnt mean you cant claim it.
Originally Posted by :
the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
Somewhat like this?the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
But a massively powerful being is not a god.
An Artifical-Intelligent UFO at the enter of our galaxy controlling everything at the quantum level is not a 'God'. Massively powerful yes, but no god. The whole "conceivable" 'God' thing doesn't work, as the very definition of 'God' is being unconceivable and he is a supernatural being thus cannot be measured by any empirical test, therefore, he doesn't exist.
Also, the denial of existence of a God is not a rejection of a God, as there must be an existence of a God to reject their existence.
An Artifical-Intelligent UFO at the enter of our galaxy controlling everything at the quantum level is not a 'God'. Massively powerful yes, but no god. The whole "conceivable" 'God' thing doesn't work, as the very definition of 'God' is being unconceivable and he is a supernatural being thus cannot be measured by any empirical test, therefore, he doesn't exist.
Also, the denial of existence of a God is not a rejection of a God, as there must be an existence of a God to reject their existence.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
Actually, it isn't. Ignosticism
What is meant by 'God exists' is not meaningful and thus nonsensical.
(and since it is nonsensical, you assume the negative)
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
OK, you know what, despite your churlish topic I'll bite.
Wrong.
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
1. My "churlish topic"? So.... When religious people say that there is a god, they're being intentionally provocative too?OK, you know what, despite your churlish topic I'll bite.
Wrong.
"God" clearly exists, otherwise one could not suggest that "God" does not exist, it would be impossible to have this discussion. the argument that man has had with himself since the beginning of time is what "God" is.
Is "God" merely an idea, or the Creator of the universe, or an insignificant microbe? That is the important question, and one which we cannot as yet actually answer.
2. There is no such thing as ghosts. But, when I make that claim, it must mean that ghost are real...?
EDIT: From Hax' linky:
Originally Posted by :
The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.
HoreTore agrees completely with the Buddha. Are you claiming that Buddhists are wrong, Philipvs?The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
So you are saying there is no God because you are so upset about Liverpool's fate?
The two statements are seperate, not linked. I made both because they're equally true So you are saying there is no God because you are so upset about Liverpool's fate?
Arsenal get to beat Barcelona in the knock-out round. Liverpool will face teams like Crawley and Rushden&Diamonds in a few years. These are facts.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
Most evangelicals are fools then?the thread title is foolish. you can neither claim that god exists nor does not exist. its impossible to prove either way.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Liverpool will face teams like Crawley and Rushden&Diamonds in a few years.
This would prove the existence of God.Liverpool will face teams like Crawley and Rushden&Diamonds in a few years.
Originally Posted by drone:
This would prove the existence of God.
No, that would prove the existence of justice in the world....This would prove the existence of God.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
1. My "churlish topic"? So.... When religious people say that there is a god, they're being intentionally provocative too?
2. There is no such thing as ghosts. But, when I make that claim, it must mean that ghost are real...?
Churlish because you are being rude, not because of the theme.1. My "churlish topic"? So.... When religious people say that there is a god, they're being intentionally provocative too?
2. There is no such thing as ghosts. But, when I make that claim, it must mean that ghost are real...?
Oh, and religious people are always provocative.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Churlish because you are being rude, not because of the theme.
Oh, and religious people are always provocative.
So when a religious guy, Lets say an evangelical, tells me that God exists or he talks to jesus or whatever, he's being rude in your opinion?Churlish because you are being rude, not because of the theme.
Oh, and religious people are always provocative.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So when a religious guy, Lets say an evangelical, tells me that God exists or he talks to jesus or whatever, he's being rude in your opinion?
That depends on how he frames it doesn't it?So when a religious guy, Lets say an evangelical, tells me that God exists or he talks to jesus or whatever, he's being rude in your opinion?
You are rude and generally disrespectful of large groups of people who do not deserve it, and you build a militant-atheist version of "God" or "religion" to use as your personal punching back. In my opinion you sometimes verge on mysanthropy.
"There is a god.
Sorry to break the news; it's true."
Try guessing what religion the guy who made the pamphlet that statement is taken from follows.
Is he being rude?
Sorry to break the news; it's true."
Try guessing what religion the guy who made the pamphlet that statement is taken from follows.
Is he being rude?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
1. My "churlish topic"? So.... When religious people say that there is a god, they're being intentionally provocative too?
2. There is no such thing as ghosts. But, when I make that claim, it must mean that ghost are real...?
EDIT: From Hax' linky:
HoreTore agrees completely with the Buddha. Are you claiming that Buddhists are wrong, Philipvs?
The two statements are seperate, not linked. I made both because they're equally true
Arsenal get to beat Barcelona in the knock-out round. Liverpool will face teams like Crawley and Rushden&Diamonds in a few years. These are facts.
can you have facts of future events? or are anticipations of future events facts?1. My "churlish topic"? So.... When religious people say that there is a god, they're being intentionally provocative too?
2. There is no such thing as ghosts. But, when I make that claim, it must mean that ghost are real...?
EDIT: From Hax' linky:
HoreTore agrees completely with the Buddha. Are you claiming that Buddhists are wrong, Philipvs?
The two statements are seperate, not linked. I made both because they're equally true
Arsenal get to beat Barcelona in the knock-out round. Liverpool will face teams like Crawley and Rushden&Diamonds in a few years. These are facts.
horetore is being stupid. i will refuse to talk to him ever again.
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
can you have facts of future events? or are anticipations of future events facts?
horetore is being stupid. i will refuse to talk to him ever again.
When it comes to Liverpool in Conference; yes, that is a fact.can you have facts of future events? or are anticipations of future events facts?
horetore is being stupid. i will refuse to talk to him ever again.
Bloody 5-3-2 destructive whores; I pee-pee on their memory.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO