Galapagos Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Just to inform you... a monopantheistic deity is a God. I know that may come as a surprise for you. Shocking huh? God= Yahweh, the Abrahamic god. Zeus is a god, but he is not "a God". You have made it clear that you are a Christian, and it is obvious what you are doing. Intelligent Design proponents like to play the same game, and claim they aren't speaking specifically about Yahweh.I don't think you are trying to troll here, just suffering from a strong need for mysticism, although I find it a bit difficult to believe that anyone could in earnest compare the evidence we have for the existence of stars with that of a magical, invisible deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Oh, ok. It is a god. So how then did we go from To Are there any other gods you should tell us about? This still does not relieve you of the original question posed to you. I proposed creating a new thread for this new proof requirements. But C1ay won't let me prove the Christian God as he is moderator and implies that one cannot even prove the existence of a star (to him). And I concede that if one cannot prove the existence of a star neither can one prove the existence of the Christian God. Up to speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I proposed creating a new thread for this new proof requirements. But C1ay won't let me prove the Christian God as he is moderator and implies that one cannot even prove the existence of a star (to him). And I concede that if one cannot prove the existence of a star neither can one prove the existence of the Christian God. Up to speed? Well, one that is a false analogy, as we can prove the existence of stars quite easily, while God by definition is not verifiable. And two, C1ay doesn't have to prove the existence of stars, because the burden of proof is on you to provide all the credible evidence. We are giving you every chance to prove the existence of the Christian God, but you aren't giving any compelling reasons or convincing evidence for his existence. And, why God? Why not Brahma, or the Great Spirit, or Zeus? What makes you think that your religious beliefs are more valid and special than the billions of people who don't subscribe to your religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 And I concede that if one cannot prove the existence of a star neither can one prove the existence of the Christian God. Up to speed? More so than you, apparently. <second time> Does the sun not rise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 This thread is turning into quite a comedy :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I find it a bit difficult to believe that anyone could in earnest compare the evidence we have for the existence of stars with that of a magical, invisible deity. But he's not invisible... just magical and everywhere. :lol: :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 But C1ay won't let me prove the Christian God as he is moderator and implies that one cannot even prove the existence of a star (to him). And I concede that if one cannot prove the existence of a star neither can one prove the existence of the Christian God. It doesn't imply that at all. I only pointed out that you cannot use supposed acts of a god to prove the existence of that god. Those acts may well have come about by some other method. Quit talking around the issue and post your proof. Got it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 God= Yahweh, the Abrahamic god. Zeus is a god, but he is not "a God". You have made it clear that you are a Christian, and it is obvious what you are doing. Intelligent Design proponents like to play the same game, and claim they aren't speaking specifically about Yahweh.I don't think you are trying to troll here, just suffering from a strong need for mysticism, although I find it a bit difficult to believe that anyone could in earnest compare the evidence we have for the existence of stars with that of a magical, invisible deity. If you study Stoicism you will learn that Zeus is considered God; omni-etc. Name the supreme being any thing you want... there can only be one by necessity. Since you haven't seen my evidence for the Christian God can can't comment on comparisons. If you want to see my proof you need to provide a method or process which will count as proof for C1ay... he claims it can't be done but he won't provide how it could be done. And he keeps giving me infractions for his own said illogic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Since you haven't seen my evidence for the Christian God can can't comment on comparisons. In fact, none of us have seen any evidence whatsoever come out of you yet. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 If you study Stoicism you will learn that Zeus is considered God; omni-etc. NO! Anybody who has studied basic Greco-Roman mythology knows that Zeus was considered the king of gods. All the other deities described were gods and goddesses in and of themselves. There is no need for you to spread incorrect information. Since you haven't seen my evidence for the Christian God can can't comment on comparisons. If you want to see my proof you need to provide a method or process which will count as proof for C1ay... he claims it can't be done but he won't provide how it could be done. That's because you haven't provided any compelling or convincing evidence yet. Stop trying to duck the questions. And he keeps giving me infractions for his own said illogic. One has to wonder why :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 NO! Anybody who has studied basic Greco-Roman mythology knows that Zeus was considered the king of gods. All the other deities described were gods and goddesses in and of themselves. There is no need for you to spread incorrect information. I clearly said Stoicism which you apparently have no knowledge of. That's because you haven't provided any compelling or convincing evidence yet. Stop trying to duck the questions. For you and anyone else I clearly RETRACT my claim on being able to prove the Christian God (at least on this forum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 If you study Stoicism you will learn that Zeus is considered God; omni-etc.In Greek Mythology Zeus was the god of thunder and sky. I'm sure you know this, and I'm sure you know that this is the most popular conception of him. I'm sure you also realize that I could have said "Poseidon" or "Ahura Mazda", and it would have gotten the point across. The point you raised was a red herring. Name the supreme being any thing you want... there can only be one by necessity.Just for fun then, why don't you try calling God "The Pink Invisible Unicorn" from now on, since the name doesn't matter.Also, why can there be only one by necessity? Since you haven't seen my evidence for the Christian God can can't comment on comparisons.No one ever has, because the Abrahamic Yahweh is not real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 In Greek Mythology Zeus was the god of thunder and sky. I'm sure you know this, and I'm sure you know that this is the most popular conception of him. I'm sure you also realize that I could have said "Poseidon" or "Ahura Mazda", and it would have gotten the point across. The point you raised was a red herring. There was a reason I said Stoicism. Just for fun then, why don't you try calling God "The Pink Invisible Unicorn" from now on, since the name doesn't matter. "The Pink Invisible Unicorn" implies God does not exist. Also, why can there be only one by necessity? Two things cannot share the same exact attributes without being equivalent. the Christian God is not real. This is a claim you are welcome to prove. Proof rests on anyone making a claim. I have retracted my claim on this forum. Will you retract yours or else prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I clearly said Stoicism which you apparently have no knowledge of. I know what you said. And I'm telling you that it is completely wrong. The stoics were Pantheists. Their philosophy is inspired, in part, by the Greco-Roman mythologies and stories of the gods and goddesses, demi-gods, etc. Your nitpicking does in no way support your position. For you and anyone else I clearly RETRACT my claim on being able to prove the Christian God (at least on this forum) You clearly do? It's about time! But, sadly, you still didn't answer any of my questions, especially the first one posed to you: What makes your religious beliefs more valid than the other ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I know what you said. And I'm telling you that it is completely wrong. The stoics were Pantheists. Their philosophy is inspired, in part, by the Greco-Roman mythologies and stories of the gods and goddesses, demi-gods, etc. Your nitpicking does in no way support your position. Really? They are pantheists? I would have never guessed. Their philosophy is inspired by LOGIC and SCIENCE. You clearly do? It's about time! But, sadly, you still didn't answer any of my questions, especially the first one posed to you: What makes your religious beliefs more valid than the other ones? Do you comprehend that you are asking me to prove validity on a topic that I retracted on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 "The Pink Invisible Unicorn" implies God does not exist. How so? You said that it didn't matter. Why can't it be a unicorn? This is a claim you are welcome to prove. Proof rests on anyone making a claim. I have retracted my claim on this forum. Will you retract yours or else prove it? Oh no, no, no! You don't get to run away from your responsibilities and shift goal posts. You still have many unresolved issues. But I will answer this question for my own entertainment. We know that the Christian God doesn't exist because 1) there is no physical evidence whatsoever for his existence, 2) any accounts of his alleged existence are either very sketchy or just plain made up, 3) given his attributes (all knowing, all powerful, etc), he by definition an impossible object as the supposed attributes quickly lead to paradoxes, 4) the bible is known to be myth, and as such any conclusions drawn from it's premises are most likely to be complete nonsense. I can list a great deal more, but as this thread is titled "Proof of God", I am going to keep it about just that; any and all attempts to prove the existence of God. So, are you going to answer my questions, or are you finally calling "uncle" and conceding the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 For you and anyone else I clearly RETRACT my claim on being able to prove the Christian God (at least on this forum) Good. Now you can get on with proving any other god you claim to exist. Since the question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless because the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions, and all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world' but only to presupposed 'attributes' extracted through an arbitrary collection of other words. I would suggest you begin with the definition of any god you intend to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts