There is no god.

All your base are semantics.

Welcome to the world of debate.

Welcome to Self Actualized, Purpose Driven Failure.

Althalus, you don't seem to understand how definitions are laid out in dictionaries. When you have a definition in the form <word><part of speech>< def. 1><def. 2><def 3.><def. ...>, these are multiple possible definitions being laid out, not multiple parts of one definition that must all always apply. For instance, if we look at Oxford's definition of 'dog':

dog

  • noun 1 a domesticated carnivorous mammal with a barking or howling voice and an acute sense of smell. 2 a wild animal resembling this, in particular any member of the dog family (Canidae), which includes the wolf, fox, coyote, jackal, and other species. 3 the male of such an animal. 4 (the dogs) Brit. informal greyhound racing. 5 informal, derogatory an unattractive woman. 6 informal a contemptible man. 7 dated a person of a specified kind: you lucky dog!

We see that no one use of 'dog' could possibly meet all these definitions. These are simply the several different accepted uses of the term.

Thus, since 'fictional' is only one of the possible definitions for 'mythical' or 'mythological', and God meets every one of the other given definitions, God may be considered mythical.

Look, a monotheistic God is a hack anyway. Even in the Bible itself there are more than one references to God as "we" or "us" and there is no way other than blind "no! it can't be!!!" to interpret it as God referring to himself as the holy trinity, rather than ... well ... himself. Especially seeing as how he really doesn't fail to do so any other time.

It's bogus, end of list. He's a wonderful fairy tale created to keep people in line and reduce disease and poverty in times when all things relative were in disorder.

[/thread]

Look, a monotheistic God is a hack anyway. Even in the Bible itself there are more than one references to God as "we" or "us" and there is no way other than blind "no! it can't be!!!" to interpret it as God referring to himself as the holy trinity, rather than ... well ... himself. Especially seeing as how he really doesn't fail to do so any other time.

It's bogus, end of list. He's a wonderful fairy tale created to keep people in line and reduce disease and poverty in times when all things relative were in disorder.

[/thread]

So does that mean the royal "we" means there is more than one monarch in england at one time?

No, it's the same as our president, or a columnist, or doctor, or any myriad of other people that use the term "we" in the very same sense... they are being one of many things... inclusive, demeaning, patronizing, explicative, etc.

How are we today
We the people
We are fighting the fight
We, we, we

God is not using any of the above contexts. Nor would he have any reason to be including humans with himself as pluralistic deities would he?

No, it's the same as our president, or a columnist, or doctor, or any myriad of other people that use the term "we" in the very same sense... they are being one of many things... inclusive, demeaning, patronizing, explicative, etc.

How are we today
We the people
We are fighting the fight
We, we, we

God is not using any of the above contexts. Nor would he have any reason to be including humans with himself as pluralistic deities would he?

The conversation in the early books of the Bible is understood to be within the trinity in Christianity and God addressing his host of angels in Judaism.

Also note:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

If God was a multiple that would be 'us' instead of 'me'.

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

Second, by examining the historical roots of religion, and the mentality of believers, you can see where religion comes from, and why people believe in it.

Third, any creator must be at least as complex, or more so, than their creation.  Having a God create the universe creates a new issue:  Where did God come from?

Welcome to Self Actualized, Purpose Driven Failure.

Purposes are for losers.

Third, any creator must be at least as complex, or more so, than their creation.  Having a God create the universe creates a new issue:  Where did God come from?

The first statement is an assumtion. Everything in the known universe requires a creation, but God predates time.

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Third, any creator must be at least as complex, or more so, than their creation.  Having a God create the universe creates a new issue:  Where did God come from?

The first statement is an assumtion. Everything in the known universe requires a creation, but God predates time.

Presumably, so does the 'cosmic egg'. Also, you haven't addressed my last post.

The conversation in the early books of the Bible is understood to be within the trinity in Christianity and God addressing his host of angels in Judaism.

note that I already debunked this statement earlier but I will restate it. This is an imperfect assumption human beings have hopefully placed upon God's word to explain the terminology they can't explain. There is no reason for god to use the terminology when he does not use it on any consistent basis, and again - according to humans, God would most definatly not be referring to *us* as multiple deities equal to himself now would he?

Also note:

Quote from: exodus 20:2-3

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

If God was a multiple that would be 'us' instead of 'me'.

How does this differ from anything I have said previously? That is my whole point. He uses this consistently throughout the bible, whereas he only uses the phrase us and we very few times...

between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence: (Luke 16:26 KJV)

Abraham met the Lord and Moses wrote about it. So Abraham and Moses knew.
David obviously knew, he called HIM his Lord, wrote about Him too.
Jeremiah knew. Jer:23:5
Zechariah obviously knew. Zec:12:8-12
Micah knew. Mic:5:2:
I could keep going, but is this even necessary? You are fighting a ridiculous battle you cannot win because it is a moot point. God has never and does not exist except to those that believe in him. You do, therefore he exists. I don't therefore he does not. End of story. Either way he is not three entities in one and never has been aside from some peoples weird interpretations. Same thing as saying Director and CEO of Such and Such corporation. That's not the same context as "neither can they pass to *us*"

[/explanations]


EDIT: Why would god even refer to other *gods* in the forst place? "Though shall have no other gods before me". If he's the only God what's the point? Whether or not people might be worshiping others is moot. He is all powerful, he is the one true god... why would he refer to others at all? Just a thought.

Quote from: Althalus on January 11, 2008, 12:22:23 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Third, any creator must be at least as complex, or more so, than their creation.  Having a God create the universe creates a new issue:  Where did God come from?

The first statement is an assumtion. Everything in the known universe requires a creation, but God predates time.

Presumably, so does the 'cosmic egg'. Also, you haven't addressed my last post.

In a short time the last obections of several members shall be addressed.

EDIT: I lied. Come back tomorrow.

Althalus you are too easily wound up over the debate of the existance of god, chill the fuck out. If people percieve and choose to conclude their surroundings to have no god then why not leave them to their possible delusion or fact?
Your lack of apathy is waning on your hair count.

No, it's the same as our president, or a columnist, or doctor, or any myriad of other people that use the term "we" in the very same sense... they are being one of many things... inclusive, demeaning, patronizing, explicative, etc.

How are we today
We the people
We are fighting the fight
We, we, we

God is not using any of the above contexts. Nor would he have any reason to be including humans with himself as pluralistic deities would he?

The royal we simply applies to the monarch.

How are we doing today is directed at a single person.

Usage fail.

Quote from: Optimus Prime on January 11, 2008, 08:06:57 AM

No, it's the same as our president, or a columnist, or doctor, or any myriad of other people that use the term "we" in the very same sense... they are being one of many things... inclusive, demeaning, patronizing, explicative, etc.

How are we today
We the people
We are fighting the fight
We, we, we

God is not using any of the above contexts. Nor would he have any reason to be including humans with himself as pluralistic deities would he?

The royal we simply applies to the monarch.

How are we doing today is directed at a single person.

Usage fail.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here... I'm reading the same thing... ?
That was my point... usage fail. God is not using the term in the same context as the "royal we". Read any of the passages in question. There is no question of whether or not God *might* be saying "we" the council, "we" the apostle, "we" the petty human, "we" the individual of anykind. The context in which the Bible reads (which has been repeatedly stated should be taken literally when God speaks) when God speaks these terms is that there are those present with him, not that he is "using the royal we". He is not a President, a Queen, a Doctor, etc.

Regardless, I agree w/ Trekky here. Believe what you want or don't. It matters little to me, I was only trying to point out that while some may continually try to point out continually smaller and smaller issues that they find as points of fault in the way I view the world... I can find just as many in the way they view theirs. Why bother?

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 14, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

No you can't.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 14, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

There are no odds on a non random event. The end. Hence make like Kurt and find your shotgun. Your blond bitch isn't home and you already have enough heroin in your veins to be leaving here.

No good will come of these quote pyramids. You should learn to let go even if you are wrong.

There are no odds on a non random event.

Ok, so you can't tell me whether it's more likely that I will find a tree in my backyard or on Mars?

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 15, 2008, 02:33:26 PM

There are no odds on a non random event.

Ok, so you can't tell me whether it's more likely that I will find a tree in my backyard or on Mars?

Can you?

Quote from: dysfunction on January 15, 2008, 06:52:02 PM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 15, 2008, 02:33:26 PM

There are no odds on a non random event.

Ok, so you can't tell me whether it's more likely that I will find a tree in my backyard or on Mars?

Can you?

I think so... 

That's actually a good point though.. the rovers haven't covered the WHOLE planet yet!

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 15, 2008, 11:23:08 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 14, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

There are no odds on a non random event. The end. Hence make like Kurt and find your shotgun. Your blond bitch isn't home and you already have enough heroin in your veins to be leaving here.

Sigh.  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying, but I'll lay it out:

The universe's existence has a certain degree of probability.
God, if she created the universe, must be as complex, or more so than the universe.
God's degree of probability is therefore equal to the universe's, or less than it.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 15, 2008, 02:33:26 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 15, 2008, 11:23:08 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 14, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

There are no odds on a non random event. The end. Hence make like Kurt and find your shotgun. Your blond bitch isn't home and you already have enough heroin in your veins to be leaving here.

Sigh.  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying, but I'll lay it out:

The universe's existence has a certain degree of probability.
God, if she created the universe, must be as complex, or more so than the universe.
God's degree of probability is therefore equal to the universe's, or less than it.

You fail it! This failure of an argument was first formed by the failure of a materialist Richard Dawkins. This argument fails because it assumes materialism. Thus, all Abrahamic concepts of God (and many other ones as well) are unaffected by this failed argument.

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 15, 2008, 02:33:26 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 15, 2008, 11:23:08 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 14, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 11, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quote from: Saint Raist on January 09, 2008, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Shredderbeam on January 08, 2008, 06:22:16 PM

This thread's title is almost certainly correct.  The odds of God's existing are long indeed, as the idea of God does not explain the ultimate question of existence, no valid arguments for his existence exist, etc.

True, it's technically unprovable, but so is Santa, the Magical Pink Unicorn, and fairies.

Also, it's technically not possible to prove that my pants are not sentient.  Are the odds of its sentience versus non-sentience exactly equal?  Hardly.

How can you calculate the odds of there being a god? That is like calculating the odds of what protons are.

First of all, you dolt, to compare it to protons implies that God does exist.

My point exactly, and that comparison does not imply the existence of god. I am simply trying to say you can't calculate the odds of god existing. It is not a random event caused by variables. have fun.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

There are no odds on a non random event. The end. Hence make like Kurt and find your shotgun. Your blond bitch isn't home and you already have enough heroin in your veins to be leaving here.

Sigh.  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying, but I'll lay it out:

The universe's existence has a certain degree of probability.
God, if she created the universe, must be as complex, or more so than the universe.
God's degree of probability is therefore equal to the universe's, or less than it.

Fail.  Even if those statements were logically sound (and I'm not sure they are), if all you can determine is that God's degree of probability is less than or equal to the universe's degree of probability, it doesn't follow that God is more likely to not exist than to exist.  All it really means is that God might or might not exist, and that doesn't get us anywhere.

Religion is for people who fear god. I say bring him on!

This post wins the best post of this forum award.

You cannot know the specific odds, but you can know for certain that they are on the side of God's not existing.

I could be wrong, but most worldly probabilities are calculated on the basis of frequency of repetition of an event. For example, the probability of a car crash in a certain stretch of road is derived from how many car crashes have happened there in a certain time (or perhaps per number of total cars).

How can we even make estimations on the odds of a one-off event or entity? We don't have other universes to study and figure out how many of them have omnipotent creators.