COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance. Please update your email address.

Thanks,
pexer99

I am already a strong atheist with regards to the Abrahamic God. I am 100% sure it does not exist.

ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
At last an atheist with [email protected] with a claim that he could never prove:

Logitext said:
I am already a strong atheist with regards to the Abrahamic God. I am 100% sure it does not exist.
«13456

Comments

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited September 20
    A claim I can never prove?
    You are correct in the sense that for the blind believer no proof against his beliefs is ever good enough. Right?
    Which is why the Catholic can not disprove the INC Zealot, and the INC cannot disprove the Catholic Zealot.


    "God", with a capital "G", almost always refer to the abrahamic god as defined by Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

    So what is God?

    Without googling, this is what I think is the definition of 'God'

    God is believed to be the supreme eternal all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, all-loving being who created everything from absolute nothing.

    How am I 100% sure this 'God' is not real? Because,


    (1) 

    First of all each of those attributes are nonsensical by itself or as paired with the other attributes.

    "All-powerful" -  this is logically impossible for that means it has the power to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. No way.

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next.

    "All-present" vs creation from absolute nothing - logically impossible for there is no way it can create something outside of itself. Otherwise we would all be a part of God.

    "Eternal" vs All-loving - you cannot love if there is nothing to love for all eternity (not applicable to the Trinity version of God). This God is supposed to be all alone for all eternity until it decided to create something.
       
    "All-loving" 
       a) and yet its not around. A person who loves is always around the person he loves.
       b) Social creatures NEED love to secure their chances of survival, the survival of their offspring. A God has no need for love, so there is no reason why God should be "all-loving".








  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited September 20
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    (3) There is simply no evidence that a God exists.

    (4) The supposed words of God, the bible, contains many contradictions and shameless lies.

    (5) God needs money. GOD NEEDS MONEY??? God had supposedly created the entire universe, and he needs money? :lol: Its a scam.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    As you admitted, Science is STILL GUESSING! :D   God does not need men, men need God.

    Genesis 6:3 New Living Translation
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

    (3) There is simply no evidence that a God exists.

    It is simply your "scientific guess" :D


    (4) The supposed words of God, the bible, contains many contradictions and shameless lies.

    The bible is a true historical account of events that really took place, be that maybe for some, they sound more like myths. The writers of the Bible spanned centuries, lived in different times and places, faced different circumstances (personal and political), and responded to those circumstances from the point of view of their settings in life. A book that brings all of this under one cover is, of course, going to exhibit a lot of diversity.

    https://allthatsinteresting.com/who-wrote-the-bible

    The "contradictions" in the bible aren't contradictions, for the Bible does not reflect the "perfectly consistent mind of God", but the diversity of time and place of the writers. Add to this the translations to different languages and the different religious backgrounds of the translators.


    (5) God needs money. GOD NEEDS MONEY??? God had supposedly created the entire universe, and he needs money? lol Its a scam.

    The Bible says we should give because we want to, and “not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver”. Offering is a commandment from God (2 Corinthians 9:7). It is a pleasing sacrifice from His nation (Psalm 50:14)

    Obeying God's commandments is the whole duty of man:

    Ecclesiaastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

    God's commandments are not burdensome:

    1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

    And why do we give monetary offerings since money has become the tool for commerce and trade (offering during the patriarchal era used to be the best animals)? Because many people in the world has turned their backs on God, they no longer believed in the existence of God (sounds familiar? :D) God is giving them a fair chance to return to Him so they, too, may be saved. To continue this task, the ministry of Jesus must be financially supported.

    So why do we "give money" or practice offering in the church? This is all for you, non-believers and prisoners of false religions, to be saved and avail of God's promise of eternal life! :D









  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    As you admitted, Science is STILL GUESSING! :D   God does not need men, men need God.

    Genesis 6:3 New Living Translation
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

    120 years max? Thats a good guess, unfortunately its wrong.

    Jeanne Calment
    21 February 1875
    4 August 1997
    122 years, 164 days[a][4]
    France

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_verified_people_ever
  • lordlapulapulordlapulapu PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    A claim I can never prove?
    You are correct in the sense that for the blind believer no proof against his beliefs is ever good enough. Right?
    Which is why the Catholic can not disprove the INC Zealot, and the INC cannot disprove the Catholic Zealot.


    "God", with a capital "G", almost always refer to the abrahamic god as defined by Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

    So what is God?

    Without googling, this is what I think is the definition of 'God'

    God is believed to be the supreme eternal all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, all-loving being who created everything from absolute nothing.

    How am I 100% sure this 'God' is not real? Because,


    (1) 

    First of all each of those attributes are nonsensical by itself or as paired with the other attributes.

    "All-powerful" -  this is logically impossible for that means it has the power to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. No way.

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next.

    "All-present" vs creation from absolute nothing - logically impossible for there is no way it can create something outside of itself. Otherwise we would all be a part of God.

    "Eternal" vs All-loving - you cannot love if there is nothing to love for all eternity (not applicable to the Trinity version of God). This God is supposed to be all alone for all eternity until it decided to create something.
       
    "All-loving" 
       a) and yet its not around. A person who loves is always around the person he loves.
       b) Social creatures NEED love to secure their chances of survival, the survival of their offspring. A God has no need for love, so there is no reason why God should be "all-loving".


     Ay! Iyan po ang tinatawag na MYSTERY! God  is a mystery po!



    logitext said:
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    (3) There is simply no evidence that a God exists.

    (4) The supposed words of God, the bible, contains many contradictions and shameless lies.

    (5) God needs money. GOD NEEDS MONEY??? God had supposedly created the entire universe, and he needs money? :lol: Its a scam.


    2. God made the universe naturally! 

    3. Because God is invisible!

    4. When you believe the bible wala na po kayong makikitang kontradiction!

    5. God owns everything! Kayat pasalamat na lang po tayo na up to 10% lang ng income ang hinihingi niya pabalik! pero ok din po kung dagdagan nyo pa!


  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    logitext said:
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    As you admitted, Science is STILL GUESSING! :D   God does not need men, men need God.

    Genesis 6:3 New Living Translation
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

    120 years max? Thats a good guess, unfortunately its wrong.

    Jeanne Calment
    21 February 1875
    4 August 1997
    122 years, 164 days[a][4]
    France

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_verified_people_ever
    Can you read? Did the verse say max? "In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    Genesis

    Chapter 6

    1

    1 When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,

    2

    2 the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.

    3

    3 Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."

    Chapter 5

    1

    1 This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God;

    2

    he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them "man."

    3

    Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth.

    4

    Adam lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he had other sons and daughters.

    5

    The whole lifetime of Adam was nine hundred and thirty years; then he died.


    yang 120 years old para sa "man" ay yung mga hindi lineage ni Adam.

    Nabuhay si Adam ng 930 years, nagkaanak noong 130 years.

    So sinasabi lang sa dalawang Chapter passages na yan ay may factions ang mga tao sa mundo.

    obviously yung grupo ng mga sh1tters at yung grupo ni Adam.


    Titans vs Olympians? Patricians vs Plebians? ring a tune?

    kaya "parang imposible" ang numbering ng edad sa lineage ni Adam ay para i demonstrate kung sino ang "man" na tinutukoy ng Diyos.

    Tingin, tingin kayo ngayon.. Ano average na lifespan sa mundo ngayon?

    at yung mga "tropa ni Adam", mga almost immortal todits sa Earth atm.

    na nag hiHintay hintay lang ng transition.


    B) B) B)

    .V.. ..I..

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    logitext said:
    (2) Theoretical Physics demonstrates the natural birth of our universe. Evolutionary science demonstrates that life develops and diversifies naturally. There was no need for a supernatural cause. Therefore no need for a God.

    As you admitted, Science is STILL GUESSING! :D   God does not need men, men need God.

    Genesis 6:3 New Living Translation
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

    120 years max? Thats a good guess, unfortunately its wrong.

    Jeanne Calment
    21 February 1875
    4 August 1997
    122 years, 164 days[a][4]
    France

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_verified_people_ever
    Can you read? Did the verse say max? "In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

    Jeanne Calment's "normal lifespan" was 122 years. 
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐

    5. God owns everything! Kayat pasalamat na lang po tayo na up to 10% lang ng income ang hinihingi niya pabalik! pero ok din po kung dagdagan nyo pa!

    Tell God I wont give my money to anyone but him and him alone.

  • lordlapulapulordlapulapu PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:

    5. God owns everything! Kayat pasalamat na lang po tayo na up to 10% lang ng income ang hinihingi niya pabalik! pero ok din po kung dagdagan nyo pa!

    Tell God I wont give my money to anyone but him and him alone.


    I will pray for you. :)
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 23
    logitext said:
    A claim I can never prove?
    You are correct in the sense that for the blind believer no proof against his beliefs is ever good enough. Right?
    Which is why the Catholic can not disprove the INC Zealot, and the INC cannot disprove the Catholic Zealot.


    "God", with a capital "G", almost always refer to the abrahamic god as defined by Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

    So what is God?

    Without googling, this is what I think is the definition of 'God'

    God is believed to be the supreme eternal all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, all-loving being who created everything from absolute nothing.

    How am I 100% sure this 'God' is not real? Because,


    (1) 

    First of all each of those attributes are nonsensical by itself or as paired with the other attributes.

    "All-powerful" -  this is logically impossible for that means it has the power to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. No way.

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next.

    "All-present" vs creation from absolute nothing - logically impossible for there is no way it can create something outside of itself. Otherwise we would all be a part of God.

    "Eternal" vs All-loving - you cannot love if there is nothing to love for all eternity (not applicable to the Trinity version of God). This God is supposed to be all alone for all eternity until it decided to create something.
       
    "All-loving" 
       a) and yet its not around. A person who loves is always around the person he loves.
       b) Social creatures NEED love to secure their chances of survival, the survival of their offspring. A God has no need for love, so there is no reason why God should be "all-loving".
    This is very easy to refute.  Have you scoured the entire universe to say that there is no entity described as God in the Abrahamic sense of the word?  

    And of course he will not break any of his laws including the laws of Logic.  There are things that God WILL NOT DO like lying.  And of course you cannot expect God who is most intelligent to do nonsense like a square circle.  But that doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent.  It only means that God does not do nonsense like a square circle and a rock too heavy for him to lift.  It is therefore a question of will and not ability.  And of course God is everywhere - BY HIS POWER. He is immanent in everything by his POWER. You just misunderstood the word.  That is why when we pray Our Father - thou art in Heaven.  He is therefore in his own abode in heaven.  But he is everywhere through his power in the same way that an artist's genius is everywhere present in his creation.  God is Eternal that is why there is creation - as proof of God's love.  

    Wala bang mas mahirap logitext?  Yan na yun?  =)
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    A claim I can never prove?
    You are correct in the sense that for the blind believer no proof against his beliefs is ever good enough. Right?
    Which is why the Catholic can not disprove the INC Zealot, and the INC cannot disprove the Catholic Zealot.


    "God", with a capital "G", almost always refer to the abrahamic god as defined by Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

    So what is God?

    Without googling, this is what I think is the definition of 'God'

    God is believed to be the supreme eternal all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, all-loving being who created everything from absolute nothing.

    How am I 100% sure this 'God' is not real? Because,


    (1) 

    First of all each of those attributes are nonsensical by itself or as paired with the other attributes.

    "All-powerful" -  this is logically impossible for that means it has the power to create a rock too heavy for him to lift. No way.

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next.

    "All-present" vs creation from absolute nothing - logically impossible for there is no way it can create something outside of itself. Otherwise we would all be a part of God.

    "Eternal" vs All-loving - you cannot love if there is nothing to love for all eternity (not applicable to the Trinity version of God). This God is supposed to be all alone for all eternity until it decided to create something.
       
    "All-loving" 
       a) and yet its not around. A person who loves is always around the person he loves.
       b) Social creatures NEED love to secure their chances of survival, the survival of their offspring. A God has no need for love, so there is no reason why God should be "all-loving".
    This is very easy to refute.  Have you scoured the entire universe to say that there is no entity described as God in the Abrahamic sense of the word?  

    And of course he will not break any of his laws including the laws of Logic.  There are things that God WILL NOT DO like lying.  And of course you cannot expect God who is most intelligent to do nonsense like a square circle.  But that doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent.  It only means that God does not do nonsense like a square circle and a rock too heavy for him to lift.  It is therefore a question of will and not ability.  And of course God is everywhere - BY HIS POWER. He is immanent in everything by his POWER. You just misunderstood the word.  That is why when we pray Our Father - thou art in Heaven.  He is therefore in his own abode in heaven.  But he is everywhere through his power in the same way that an artist's genius is everywhere present in his creation.  God is Eternal that is why there is creation - as proof of God's love.  

    Wala bang mas mahirap logitext?  Yan na yun?  =)

    Thats not a refutation, its a cop-out.

    Those attributes are already a violation of logic, as I have explained.

    If you believe that this is God's word, then he is a liar:

    Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 24
    logitext said:

    Thats not a refutation, its a cop-out.

    Those attributes are already a violation of logic, as I have explained.

    If you believe that this is God's word, then he is a liar:

    Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
    Where is your point by point rebuttal? Lol.  That's simply no good logitext. You can't prove that there are no aliens for example let alone prove that there is no God in the entire universe. 

    That's fallacious reasoning on your part.  

    The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

    http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

    That is why atheists like JT would NEVER take the strong atheist position because of the BURDEN OF PROOF.  He knows he can't prove that God does not exist.

    YOU LOSE AGAIN BIG TIME LOGITEXT.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    The absence of evidence is simply the 3rd from a list of 5. The biggest is the 1st, the one you copped out of.
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 24
    logitext said:
    The absence of evidence is simply the 3rd from a list of 5. The biggest is the 1st, the one you copped out of.
    This fallacious reasoning is called SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  You are the one with an improvable claim here, not I.  Logically speaking - YOU SIMPLY CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE CLAIM especially when the domain is not known or is everywhere lol. Everyone knows that except you.  Even JT knows that that is why he takes the weak atheist position - the no balls position lol. Again:

    The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

    Again you make another fallacious claim you cannot logically prove.
  • Tell God I wont give my money to anyone but him and him alone. God owns everything! Kayat pasalamat na lang po tayo na up to 10% lang ng income ang hinihingi niya pabalik! pero ok din po kung dagdagan nyo pa!


  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    The absence of evidence is simply the 3rd from a list of 5. The biggest is the 1st, the one you copped out of.
    This fallacious reasoning is called SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  You are the one with an improvable claim here, not I.  Logically speaking - YOU SIMPLY CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE CLAIM especially when the domain is not known or is everywhere lol. Everyone knows that except you.  Even JT knows that that is why he takes the weak atheist position - the no balls position lol. Again:

    The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

    Again you make another fallacious claim you cannot logically prove.


    I have proven my claim. You simply ignored them.

    Thats what is called SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE FALLACY. :lol:
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 24
    logitext said:
    I have proven my claim. You simply ignored them.
    Thats what is called SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE FALLACY. :lol:O
    I have refuted your proofs and you don't even have a point by point rebuttal - you just swept it under the rug.

    What you have proven so far is that you FELL INTO A TRAP and that JT  is a lot smarter than you in that respect.  You can't prove the negative especially if the domain is unknown:  The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited September 24
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    I have proven my claim. You simply ignored them.
    Thats what is called SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE FALLACY. :lol:O
    I have refuted your proofs and you don't even have a point by point rebuttal - you just swept it under the rug.

    What you have proven so far is that you FELL INTO A TRAP and that JT  is a lot smarter than you in that respect.  You can't prove the negative especially if the domain is unknown:  The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

    Where is your refutation for this: 

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next.


    STOP PROJECTING, you rug sweeper
  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    So this is the only one left of your proof that there is no God? lol

    "All-knowing" - logically impossible for there is no way to know the thrill of not knowing what comes next. 

    This is a stup!d argument actually since God is not like men that he needs to feel the 'thrill' of not knowing what comes next?  Thrill is not knowledge but a feeling.  And that is not a definition of a God but of a man.  But nevertheless God still knows everything through Jesus Christ whom, although God, took the form of a man and became one of us.  As such your objection is useless and doesn't make sense.  He even feels pain and sorrow just like one of us. 

    Everyone who knows his logic knows that you can't prove a negative existential proposition especially when the domain is unknown:  

    The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

    http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

    Again you cannot squirm out of this one.  Your proofs have all been refuted.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file