MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 How so? You said that it didn't matter. Why can't it be a unicorn? Pink implies God has some color... and unicorn implies God is some horse with a horn. None of which come from pantheism. 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. 1) you haven't seen my evidence so at best you can claim you do not know of any evidence that supports...etc 3) you are welcome to prove the supposed paradoxes effect my proof 4) bandwaggon fallacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Really? They are pantheists? I would have never guessed. Their philosophy is inspired by LOGIC and SCIENCE. Yeah, they were pantheists, as a matter of fact. Their philosophy was inspired from many sources, including their mythology. It's quite funny that you are trying to be sarcastic when you initially claimed that they were monotheists. Do you comprehend that you are asking me to prove validity on a topic that you imply you understand I retracted on this forum. I understand what you are doing. You are just having a hard time swallowing your own selfish pride and admitting defeat. You make me laugh. You are typical of all the theists that have come before me, both online and in real life. You happen to think that, somehow, your beliefs are more valid than those other ones, based on no evidence or proper logic whatsoever, and then you attempt to push this on everybody else. You give no credence to the myriad of other beliefs and doctrines, and desperately search for any minuscule scientific misquote that lends credence to your own. You clearly see yourself as superior because of this little belief of yours, at the expense of others. It is quite pathetic as a matter of fact. Now, you are entitled to your own opinions, and you certainly have the right to believe what ever you want. However, don't expect the rest of us to just come flocking into your churches. There are 4 billion people on this planet who don't subscribe to the Abrahamic religions and beliefs, and the primary reason is because there is no possible evidence whatsoever that lends any more credibility to belief in God, as opposed to belief in Brahma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 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, Lets examine your logic; 1. the notion of a particle has no consistent definition among the various theories in physics Do you claim the question of whether or not a particle exists is inherently meaningless as well? In other words are you consistent? If not, retract your claim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Pink implies God has some color... and unicorn implies God is some horse with a horn. None of which come from pantheism. Why can't God have a color? How do you know that God isn't a horse? And for that matter, how do you know that God isn't a she?After all, nobody has ever SEEN him, have they? 1) you haven't seen my evidence so at best you can claim you do not know of any evidence that supports...etc 3) you are welcome to prove the supposed paradoxes effect my proof 4) bandwaggon fallacy 1) You haven't provided any.3) Can God lift a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?4) No, that is not a bandwagon fallacy. Clearly you don't know what one is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Yeah, they were pantheists, as a matter of fact. Their philosophy was inspired from many sources, including their mythology. It's quite funny that you are trying to be sarcastic when you initially claimed that they were monotheists. Now we are have reading comprehension problems? Monopantheism is the word I used. There are 4 billion people on this planet who don't subscribe to the Abrahamic religions and beliefs, and the primary reason is because there is no possible evidence whatsoever that lends any more credibility to belief in God, as opposed to belief in Brahma. Once again, you cannot hold this universal claim. You can say that you do not know of any evidence though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Why can't God have a color? How do you know that God isn't a horse? And for that matter, how do you know that God isn't a she?After all, nobody has ever SEEN him, have they? Theistic notions are irrelevant to pantheism. 3) Can God lift a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Now we are have reading comprehension problems? Monopantheism is the word I used. :lol: Again you shift the goal-posts! And you are still making incorrect claims. The stoics were pantheists, period. If you bothered studying Greco-Roman mythology and philosophy, you wouldn't have made this claim. Ad hominems are a clear indication that you have lost. Once again, you cannot hold this universal claim. You can say that you do not know of any evidence though. Sure I can. For all the reasons that were listed before in this thread. What makes your beliefs more special than any of the ones held by 4 billion other people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Lets examine your logic; 1. the notion of a particle has no consistent definition among the various theories in physics Do you claim the question of whether or not a particle exists is inherently meaningless as well? In other words are you consistent? If not, retract your claim! Again, it's irrelevant. Now, you started this thread claiming your proof of God. Get it posted and quit trying to prevaricate with your silly word play. I will expect to see it in your next post and I expect it will not be based on tautologies requiring faith. You have been warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Theistic notions are irrelevant to pantheism. You didn't answer my question. This seems to be a re-occurring theme with you. No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift. So, he's not all powerful then? Does this mean that, gasp, he isn't really a God! :hihi::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 :lol: Again you shift the goal-posts! And you are still making incorrect claims. The stoics were pantheists, period. If you bothered studying Greco-Roman mythology and philosophy, you wouldn't have made this claim. Ad hominems are a clear indication that you have lost. Most pantheists claim that theistic gods do not exists. Do you understand this? In other words for pantheists there is only ONE God. Spinoza's Ethics is an example of a logical proof on pantheistic monism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Most pantheists claim that theistic gods do not exists. Do you understand this? In other words for pantheists there is only ONE God. Spinoza's Ethics is an example of a logical proof on pantheistic monism. No, that's not quite true. The pantheists are very clear on how many gods are regarded to exist. What is true is that they reject YOUR notion of a God. Don't try to play semantics with me, you are losing miserably here. So, are you going to answer the questions and defend your ideas or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Again, it's irrelevant. Now, you started this thread claiming your proof of God. Get it posted and quit trying to prevaricate with your silly word play. I will expect to see it in your next post and I expect it will not be based on tautologies requiring faith. You have been warned. I see you are allowed to make illogical claims that I clearly have refuted yet I am still supposed to prove God within your illogical system. LOL What a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I see you are allowed to make illogical claims that I clearly have refuted yet I am still supposed to prove God within your illogical system. LOL What a joke! Where did you do this, exactly? I'm not seeing it. And, oh look... the LOL is back. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 So, he's not all powerful then? Does this mean that, gasp, he isn't really a God! I gave you my answer that is based on my proof and the scientific definition of power. It does resolve the paradox but whether you can comprehend it is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I gave you my answer that is based on my proof and the scientific definition of power. It does resolve the paradox but whether you can comprehend it is another question. I presume you are still referring to your misrepresentation of zero point energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I see you are allowed to make illogical claims that I clearly have refuted yet I am still supposed to prove God within your illogical system. LOL What a joke! You started this thread with a claim to prove god and you've provided no proof at all. Instead you want to endlessly try to prevaricate by claiming somehow that I or anyone else must claim anything we've said first when they are simply diversions from your inability to back up your claim. There's nothing illogical about the system at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 You started this thread with a claim to prove god and you've provided no proof at all. Instead you want to endlessly try to prevaricate by claiming somehow that I or anyone else must claim anything we've said first when they are simply diversions from your inability to back up your claim. There's nothing illogical about the system at all. The OP is the proof. And you have sought to disprove the foundations of my proof by claiming I cannot define and thus prove God. But your argument was completely destroyed! Can you handle that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts