A Disproof of Your God.

[barklolbark]

They aren't really out of context...you did say them did you not? If you were in court, your words would be used against you. Saying you meant to say it as a word meaning obviously true instead of what it actually means is illogical, and goes against the word. Why would a word come out of context because you didn't know how to use it? It didn't, you just used it wrong, got caught, and tried making up an excuse. You can deny what I've said, but doing so would make you pathetic. Accept that you've created an error in your choice of words.

You can deny logic. But if you are looking for the truth, it is undeniable.

Wrong. Until you have found the truth, logic is still deniable. Therefor, wait until something happens and find out for yourself, don't tell other people that don't want to hear due to "ignorance".

I made an error in my choice of words.

You're an idiot, plain and simple.
All you're doing is retyping the same thing over and over and over.
It doesn't even make sense either.
I love how you pretty much make claims of things I never even mentioned.
I never said I didn't trust the Bible,
all I'm saying is that you're ignoring the language barriers,
as in HELLO, Hebrew is a lost language and this was what the original Torah would be written in.
Not LATIN, NOT GREEK.
There are words in this language that are similar, but don't exactly mean the same in English. Also, just stop with the demigod shit, because you just make yourself look like a moron. Even if I did believe my own logic of God was trustworthy and not another humans, that wouldn't make me idolize myself as a demigod..do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Or are you just copy pasting from someone with no brain in their skull?

BOTTOM LINE: YOU HAVE DISPROVED NOTHING. THIS ARGUMENT IS ON SO MANY ATHEIST WEBSITES, AND GUESS WHAT? IT IS STILL NOT IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ELOHIM IS NOT GOD THE CREATOR, NOR DOES IT PROVE ANYTHING FALSE ABOUT THE ATTRIBUTES WE HAVE BEEN REVEALED. /END THREAD

Nice big bold font so you can let it sink in.

BOTTOM LINE: YOU HAVE DISPROVED NOTHING. YOU'VE REPEATED YOUR ARGUMENT MANY TIMES AND IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED. YOU'VE SAID 3 TIMES THAT YOU WOULD STOP COMING TO THIS THREAD, SO JUST GIVE UP THE ACT. I'VE TOLD YOU MY STANDPOINT, ESPECIALLY ON THE ARGUMENTS YOU KEEP REPEATING, AND YET YOU KEEP REPEATING THEM... WHY? /END THREAD IS A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, SO YOU'VE JUST BEGAN THE THREAD AGAIN. GF

Nice big bold font so YOU can let it sink in.

"Disproof of God #3

1.) God is, at the least, omnipotent and omniscient - by the conventional assumptions of divine qualities made by Abrahamic religions. To deny this is to contradict your own belief in god.(*A)

2.) If god is all powerful, he can limit his omniscience.

3.) If god is able to limit his omniscience, then he is not actually omniscient - and, therefore, not a god. If he cannot limit his omniscience, then he is not omnipotent - and therefore not a god. Either way your god's existance is an impossibility.

(*A) Should you argue that human logic does not apply to god - by the argument's reflexive properties - you argue you cannot trust your OWN concepts of god - and thus, you have no reason to believe in a god; because, if human logic cannot be trusted, neither can yours. In addition, if you believe your logic of god is trustworthy, but not another human's, you idolize yourself equivilent of a demigod - a feat which is condemned by Judeo-Christian religions and is thus impossible."-Bark.

1. God created the universe.
-Casuality:
Ok here is the simplified version.
a) Every effect has a cause.
b) From nothing comes nothing.
c) Go back as far as you can, logically something had to start it.
d) The something is therefore not an effect, but a timeless cause.
e) That thing is god.

2. "limiting power" is like me throwing a ball.
I can either throw it "fast" or "slow". I limit myself from throwing it at the fastest i can, so that the other guy can catch it.
"limiting omniscience" Isn't possible in the first place. Limiting unlimited knowledge is like saying limiting an unlimited item.
-Unlimited is without limit. To limit it would be impossible.

3. Saying "if he can't limit his power/knowledge" then he is not a God is silly, when by definition thats what makes him God in the first place.

Human logic is in all fairness, evolving.

1. You're arguing that something in our universe has to be timeful, but time is contingent upon our universe. If our universe does not exist, time itself cannot exist and thus, the universe is not contingent upon time.

2. Argument 3 has been disproved way far back in the thread. I don't know why people still talk about this, but then again I can't edit my first post.

3. See 2.

[Empire]

1. You're arguing that something in our universe has to be timeful, but time is contingent upon our universe. If our universe does not exist, time itself cannot exist and thus, the universe is not contingent upon time.

2. Argument 3 has been disproved way far back in the thread. I don't know why people still talk about this, but then again I can't edit my first post.

3. See 2.

1. But out universe does exist, and it does have time. So.....yeah, you're wrong. If it did not exist, time would not exist for us, since we no longer existed, but by that logic the universe is not contingent with logic.
?_? Are you saying god can't be timeless because you believe the universe has no timeline?

2. Ah, thats cus of the quote and whatnot, i see.

[barklolbark]

1. But out universe does exist, and it does have time. So.....yeah, you're wrong. If it did not exist, time would not exist for us, since we no longer existed, but by that logic the universe is not contingent with logic.
?_? Are you saying god can't be timeless because you believe the universe has no timeline?

Does our universe have time, or does our universe contain time? There is no logic or scientific theory that I have come across saying that the universe as a whole is affected by one definition of time. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[Nismo]

Constants change. 'Alpha' has changed slightly over 13 billion years. We can't apply current physics to the start of the Universe... for all we know, it could have been completely different.

"The Universe has been here for forever, and changed 13-14,000,000,000 years ago" disprove that.

^just a theory, not saying it's true.

[barklolbark]

Constants change. 'Alpha' has changed slightly over 13 billion years. We can't apply current physics to the start of the Universe... for all we know, it could have been completely different.

"The Universe has been here for forever, and changed 13-14,000,000,000 years ago" disprove that.

^just a theory, not saying it's true.

Who are you talking to? And what are you even talking about?

[Nismo]

lol sorry. Everyone trying to say "From nothing comes nothing."

[Empire]

lol sorry. Everyone trying to say "From nothing comes nothing."

?_? Do you see something coming out from absolutely nothing?

"from nothing comes nothing" is true lol.

Does our universe have time, or does our universe contain time? There is no logic or scientific theory that I have come across saying that the universe as a whole is affected by one definition of time. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

:/ does it matter on either option? Either one proves my point lol.

Its not even about time as a measurement.(seconds, years, etc.)

Its simple logic, which is cause and effect.

[Nismo]

?_? Do you see something coming out from absolutely nothing?

"from nothing comes nothing" is true lol.

As of 2011...

See what I mean?

[Empire]

As of 2011...

See what I mean?

Not really no. "from nothing comes nothing" is pretty obvious lulz.

[Nismo]

Not really no. "from nothing comes nothing" is pretty obvious lulz.

We have only a small idea of how things worked back then.. it could have been possible..

[Empire]

We have only a small idea of how things worked back then.. it could have been possible..

:/ You really don't understand basic logic do you?


"From nothing, comes nothing"

Its not a technological issue. Its cause and effect.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

I made an error in my choice of words.



BOTTOM LINE: YOU HAVE DISPROVED NOTHING. YOU'VE REPEATED YOUR ARGUMENT MANY TIMES AND IT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED. YOU'VE SAID 3 TIMES THAT YOU WOULD STOP COMING TO THIS THREAD, SO JUST GIVE UP THE ACT. I'VE TOLD YOU MY STANDPOINT, ESPECIALLY ON THE ARGUMENTS YOU KEEP REPEATING, AND YET YOU KEEP REPEATING THEM... WHY? /END THREAD IS A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, SO YOU'VE JUST BEGAN THE THREAD AGAIN. GF

Nice big bold font so YOU can let it sink in.

Find where i have repeated the same quote like you have?
3-4 times going on about the demigod thing..which btw makes no sense.
Another word that would not exist in the Bible, since that is Greek Mythology.
LOL what have you debunked? I proved that you have no proof that the Abrahamaic God is not the creator. Tell me I haven't.
I think the most laughable argument you had was comparing human logic with God's supernatural ability. "God does illogical things in Bible deeerp, therefore he don't exist" Do you realize how ridiculous that claim is?

Any God in general would not be governed by the same logic that we are governed by. If God was restrained by the same logic that we were,
Then being the creator would not be possible.

[barklolbark]

Find where i have repeated the same quote like you have?
3-4 times going on about the demigod thing..which btw makes no sense.
Another word that would not exist in the Bible, since that is Greek Mythology.
LOL what have you debunked? I proved that you have no proof that the Abrahamaic God is not the creator. Tell me I haven't.
I think the most laughable argument you had was comparing human logic with God's supernatural ability. "God does illogical things in Bible deeerp, therefore he don't exist" Do you realize how ridiculous that claim is?

Any God in general would not be governed by the same logic that we are governed by. If God was restrained by the same logic that we were,
Then being the creator would not be possible.

I've debunked your "God's logic is greater than our's" theory. Just give it up...

:/ You really don't understand basic logic do you?


"From nothing, comes nothing"

Its not a technological issue. Its cause and effect.

Imagine that you are looking at timelessness, what is "outside" our universe - God's territory.
God cannot be seen because he is not physical (he is a nonphysical being, spirit or consciousness) and he can't be heard, touched, felt etc because of that reason.
The only thing that makes God what he is, is his consciousness. Now imagine that his consciousness is completely immutable. If we are to use the analogy of the movie again, his consciousness would be a still frame picture, except that you can't see the photo because he isn't physical.
Notice how God is synonymous with nothing?

So nothing is made out of nothing? But I think the universe is something.

[CaT-]

Bark you're trying too hard :|, kind of like visible.

[barklolbark]

Bark you're trying too hard :|, kind of like visible.

What can I say? I'm a trifecta.