Is life without God possible?

[Mudda]

You had nothing then either.

Other than correcting your error and exposing your external locus of control? No.

You exposed nothing and repeating it won't alter that fact. FACT.

I disagree. After you claimed that I had made a, "Nice personal opinion, but presented no proof (see posts #97 and #99). I got you to admit that you didn't need any evidence to accept the statements I made:

1. We live in a shared universe (see post# 118).
2. There is cause and effect relationship (see post #123)

Then when I pointed out what your error, you blamed me for it in post #131. So I disagree with you that I have not exposed anything. Shall we continue?

I never admitted any such thing. Start from there.

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

 

[ding]

Other than correcting your error and exposing your external locus of control? No.

You exposed nothing and repeating it won't alter that fact. FACT.

I disagree. After you claimed that I had made a, "Nice personal opinion, but presented no proof (see posts #97 and #99). I got you to admit that you didn't need any evidence to accept the statements I made:

1. We live in a shared universe (see post# 118).
2. There is cause and effect relationship (see post #123)

Then when I pointed out what your error, you blamed me for it in post #131. So I disagree with you that I have not exposed anything. Shall we continue?

I never admitted any such thing. Start from there.

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

 

[Mudda]

You exposed nothing and repeating it won't alter that fact. FACT.

I disagree. After you claimed that I had made a, "Nice personal opinion, but presented no proof (see posts #97 and #99). I got you to admit that you didn't need any evidence to accept the statements I made:

1. We live in a shared universe (see post# 118).
2. There is cause and effect relationship (see post #123)

Then when I pointed out what your error, you blamed me for it in post #131. So I disagree with you that I have not exposed anything. Shall we continue?

I never admitted any such thing. Start from there.

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

 

[ding]

I disagree. After you claimed that I had made a, "Nice personal opinion, but presented no proof (see posts #97 and #99). I got you to admit that you didn't need any evidence to accept the statements I made:

1. We live in a shared universe (see post# 118).
2. There is cause and effect relationship (see post #123)

Then when I pointed out what your error, you blamed me for it in post #131. So I disagree with you that I have not exposed anything. Shall we continue?

I never admitted any such thing. Start from there.

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

 

[Mudda]

I never admitted any such thing. Start from there.

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

Whatever, so continue. What were we talking about anyways?

 

[ding]

Lol. It's all in black and white

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

Whatever, so continue. What were we talking about anyways?

Your predictable surprises from normalizing your deviance.

 

[Mudda]

A shared universe has proof, the other folks in it. And cause and effect has proof as well. So no, I never said that I accepted anything without proof.

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

Whatever, so continue. What were we talking about anyways?

Your predictable surprises from normalizing your deviance.

?

 

[ding]

Sorry. You can't take it back. You have already put it out there. See post #118.

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

Whatever, so continue. What were we talking about anyways?

Your predictable surprises from normalizing your deviance.

?

I know. They were big words.

 

[Mudda]

I said that you don't need to put proof forward on that because there's already plenty, there's a difference. And if you want to reference something, you need to make it a link to the post.

Yes, there is a difference but you made a blanket denial. It would have been illogical to proceed without correcting your error.

Whatever, so continue. What were we talking about anyways?

Your predictable surprises from normalizing your deviance.

?

I know. They were big words.

does this mean that you prefer not to continue with your failed premise? Good for you.

 

[sealybobo]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

You laid your question(s) out horribly. Why don't you say what you are thinking and I'll tell you what I as an atheist believes.

Without my parents there's no me. Hopefully they raise me right but eventually animals become independent and move on. So my life doesn't end with my parents.

You have ancestors that go back millions of years. If you have kids your genes will live on. But your life ends when you tie. Enjoy the time you have.

 

[sealybobo]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy

Science makes more sense

I'm ok with calling the thing that started our universe God but don't tell me that thing visited you or that any of your holy books are anything but allegories.

 

[sealybobo]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

First, it is NOT easy "if we assume a God".

For example look at all the Jews who struggle with a promise of being the "chosen people" versus the holocaust they suffered under Adolf in Germany.

As to whether there is or is not a God or Gods, this issue has been dealt with extensively by Modern Philosophy. Modern Philosophy started with Rene Descartes.

As to your question, "what if there is no God?" then you arrive at all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes.

Ergo it is UNLIKELY that there is no God or Gods.

Logically speaking there must be a God or Gods to explain the beginning of all things.

So your question is rhetorical. Since it naturally results in contradictions it is logically illogical.

This strongly suggests philosophically speaking that there IS a God or Gods.

Q.E.D.

I hate it when people do that. "Assuming God is real" and then go on to try and prove God exists but your theory is only correct if you assume God is real. It doesn't work that way.

This guys lost is all over the place. I hope he later cuts to the chase and say what he wants to say. You know there must be a point

 

[Mudda]

But seriously, how do I make it through the day without god?

 

[sealybobo]

But seriously, how do I make it through the day without god?

For me the answer to your question is unknowable so I'm agnostic about it

 

[Mudda]

But seriously, how do I make it through the day without god?

For me the answer to your question is unknowable so I'm agnostic about it

You don't know how you make it through the day without god?

 

[sealybobo]

But seriously, how do I make it through the day without god?

You aren't worrying about an afterlife.

It just dawned on me that theists believe they themselves are God's. Their souls never die and they live in paradise where everything they ever wanted is theirs. Are you agnostic about this too?