If you are human, you are not capable of understanding God.

[BreezeWood]

Can a black-winged heliconius - or some other denizen of the Amazon rainforest - explain the Amazon rainforest, rather than attest to whatever truth concerning it is manifest by its existence?

View attachment 482864​

I realized that this conceit is merely a far less eloquently concise rendering of Yeats' "Man can embody truth, but he cannot know it."

Apologies to W.B.

.

"Man can embody truth, but he cannot know it."

.
I'm trying to find what I am missing for the above.

what about flora ...
.

.
do you deny them a spiritual content - surly there is a similarity between truth and spirit and admission to the Everlasting. what else is there to live for.

cannot - for a spirit - does not exist.

 

[LittleNipper]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

 

[Slyhunter]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

What God does or what those who believe in God does and credit to God even though they are the ones who actually did it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So a god must a did it because air molecules are transparent. I recently fixed up my windmill. Gave "God" plenty of time.. "He" didn't do diddly.

 

[LittleNipper]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

And so GOD revealed HIMSELF through the inspiration of HIS chosen individuals at selected moments in human history.

 

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

 

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So god makes hurricanes to kill people and destroy property?

 

[LittleNipper]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

What God does or what those who believe in God does and credit to God even though they are the ones who actually did it.

People who make things up are never correct 100% of the time.

 

[LittleNipper]

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So a god must a did it because air molecules are transparent. I recently fixed up my windmill. Gave "God" plenty of time.. "He" didn't do diddly.

The reality is that all things that exist are not necessarily visible to the unaided eye but they still have an impact.

 

[LittleNipper]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So god makes hurricanes to kill people and destroy property?

Satan is presently the master of manipulation. GOD does the saving and protection.

 

[Slyhunter]

Does God exist?

Yes and no.

God is not constrained by existence one way or the other.

No one can impose existence upon God, or deprive God of it.

God is none, or one, or many.

Or all simultaneously.

Or not.

That is what it means to be God.

If you insist God exists, God does not exist.

If you insist God does not exist, God exists.

God does that to remind you that you are not God.

It takes one to know one.

It's way above your pay grade.

View attachment 480914​

​

​

​

View attachment 480917​

"DO I BELIEVE HUMANS EXIST?​

WHAT ARE THEY FOR?"​

​

​

And so GOD revealed HIMSELF through the inspiration of HIS chosen individuals at selected moments in human history.

Says who? Says the con men who claim he spoke to them.

 

[Slyhunter]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So god makes hurricanes to kill people and destroy property?

Satan is presently the master of manipulation. GOD does the saving and protection.

Again, says who?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The reality is that all things that exist are not necessarily visible to the unaided eye but they still have an impact.

I know. Farts, for example. But I manage fine without blaming them on "God."

 

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Maybe you should watch for what GOD does. Can you see the wind, or do you see what it can do?

So god makes hurricanes to kill people and destroy property?

Satan is presently the master of manipulation. GOD does the saving and protection.

So god has a scapegoat because god can't fix these things.

 

[ding]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

 

[ding]

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

The concept of some - a god who demands to be worshipped by folks around whom he insists upon skulking about furtively - is curious.

Hiring a better agent to arrange glitzy promotional personal appearances and giving away autographed tchotchkes might help.

Curious? It's incorrect. You don't know what worship means.

The word worship comes from the word worthy. Setting aside the theology that God is complete, lacking in nothing and in need of nothing - which justifies my belief that worshiping God is for us and not Him - I will approach this from a practical or natural benefit stand point. But first I have to set the stage.

Most people don't realize - or take for granted - the amazing gift we have been given. We have literally won the cosmic lottery. And that applies to each and every human being who has ever lived no matter their experiences in life. We are the pinnacle of creation. We are beings that know and create. The most complex thing that creation has produced. We get to experience existence. Existence is literally made manifest by our minds. The very fabric of what we are made out of was created out of nothing ~14 billion years ago. It's pretty incredible stuff if you stop to think about it.

And how should one show appreciation for being given such a wonderful gift? I say it is the exact same way we show appreciation for all the gifts we are given. We thank the gift giver for the gift and then show them how much we appreciate the gift by using the gift. Thus proving to the gift giver that we were worthy of receiving the gift. And that's where the benefit of worship comes in. We are happiest when we use our talents to create. Creating is supposed to be so much fun that we have to be told to take a day off from creating. I worship God by treating every act I do as a sacred act. It's sublime. No matter what the task is I see this as my way of thanking God for giving me the precious and rare gift of existence. As such I get joy and contentment from everything I do. When obstacles arise, I see it as a challenge instead of a burden. So instead of getting discouraged or pissed off I look at it as an opportunity to discover what God wanted me to learn.

There are two things that happen when one is happy; dopamine is released which gives us that happy feeling and all the learning centers of the brain switch on. That's the benefit of worshiping God.

 

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

 

[ding]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

 

[Taz]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I'm looking for god. How many time do I have to say it?

 

[ding]

My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.

Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.

I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.

From:

Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...

ffrf.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.

Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.

Design

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

God prefers to hide, what a weenie.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.

Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.

Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.

How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?

When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.

I'm looking for god. How many time do I have to say it?

How many times do I have to say... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.