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

[Grumblenuts]

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

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

Edison is commonly credited with inventing the light bulb, but Joseph Swan, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans are among those with credible claims to the distinction as well. In any event, all had only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, but did not let that stop them.

And now college freshmen understand it. And you dodged my point. Why start a thread, then dodge the points in the on topic responses?

I'd say precious few doctoral physicists yet have much of a clue regarding actual electricity, but I agree schmidlap evades the point there. Given reasonable time, Edison could easily gain a practical understanding of LED bulbs, for example. To me, the Yeats quote simply says There can logically be no absolutes. "Truth" is a word required to gauge broad usefulness. Anything extremely false generally wastes people's time. AGW deniers, rabid anti-vaxxers, bounding bible pounders,.. "Lie," regardless of type, needs a counter. Whereas, getting closer to truth, making more sense of something, would likely help the vast majority (given you could hold them down and rub their faces in it for maybe a year or so)

ANTONYMS OF lie
MOST RELEVANT

• frankness
• honesty
• non-fiction
• openness
• truth
• truthfulness
• uprightness
• compliment
• praise
• sincerity

 

[schmidlap]

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

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

Edison is commonly credited with inventing the light bulb, but Joseph Swan, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans are among those with credible claims to the distinction as well. In any event, all had only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, but did not let that stop them.

And now college freshmen understand it. And you dodged my point. Why start a thread, then dodge the points in the on topic responses?

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

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

Sprightly discourse ensues.

 

[schmidlap]

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

 

[BreezeWood]

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.
that's an interesting answer in itself, I do not see the connection for the question asked, however.

howabout, when born does the offspring speak freely with their parent - or do they need first to learn a language.

... what physiology has more than one spiritual content.

well, who's definition of a god are you using - can you be so bold as to give an idea of just what that might be. the definition.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[schmidlap]

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.

A fine read for humans, and, as one, I enjoyed it.

I doubt that it would appeal to the gods, but with the gods, who knows?

 

[schmidlap]

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.
that's an interesting answer in itself, I do not see the connection for the question asked, however.

howabout, when born does the offspring speak freely with their parent - or do they need first to learn a language.

... what physiology has more than one spiritual content.

well, who's definition of a god are you using - can you be so bold as to give an idea of just what that might be. the definition.

I am accepting the common definition of god (excepting the Hindu ones) as a supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal entity - traits that place a god far beyond human understanding.

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?

 

[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.

 

[themirrorthief]

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?"​

​

​

if you know so much you must b god

 

[themirrorthief]

I say it would work.

Maybe on FOX.

who the fuck makes you watch Fox...and if you dont watch it what the fuck do u know about it

 

[themirrorthief]

Of course we can understand all the gods, because we invented them. Next you are going to tell me Edison could not understand the light bulb.

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

Edison is commonly credited with inventing the light bulb, but Joseph Swan, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans are among those with credible claims to the distinction as well. In any event, all had only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, but did not let that stop them.

And now college freshmen understand it. And you dodged my point. Why start a thread, then dodge the points in the on topic responses?

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

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

Sprightly discourse ensues.

we are God Einstein....even the bible says so

 

[BreezeWood]

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.

their physiology or the unique spiritual content comprising a particular being - is finite or you are saying they both will perish the same.

I am observing that, despite the propensity of some humans to define god(s), that capacity is beyond human capability according to their definition of god(s).

.
that's an interesting answer in itself, I do not see the connection for the question asked, however.

howabout, when born does the offspring speak freely with their parent - or do they need first to learn a language.

... what physiology has more than one spiritual content.

well, who's definition of a god are you using - can you be so bold as to give an idea of just what that might be. the definition.

I am accepting the common definition of god (excepting the Hindu ones) as a supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal entity - traits that place a god far beyond human understanding.

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?

.

I am accepting the common definition of god (excepting the Hindu ones) as a supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal entity - traits that place a god far beyond human understanding.

.
your definition would be a supreme god, the eternal being a deciding factor over others. without a likelihood in existence.

whereas metaphysical, cyclical events by their nature would reproduce god's from inception. without design. that came into existence the same as everything else, whatever that might be and evolve to where they presently reside. a more reasonable definition. they survived to become who they are. just as beings on planet Earth. have a beginning.
.
.

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?

- when born does the offspring speak freely with their parent - or do they need first to learn a language.

.
not sure what the highlight is referring otherwise the answer is yes, if they complete the prescribed requirement to accomplish the feat.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[schmidlap]

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.

 

[schmidlap]

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?

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.