The assertion has to be made for me to say "god doesn't exist" otherwise people would say either "what the fuck is a god?" or "no shit, sherlock". So it's the lack of evidence that there is a cat there. There is no evidence of a cat, therefore there is no cat. Interesting. How does that differ from what i'm doing again? Then you can't assert that it exists then, certainly on no more solid grounds than i can claim it doesn't. If the evidence is unreachable, inherently unobservable, then it is unreachable and inherently unobservable for you too. All you have done in this thread is demand certain standards from others while trying to make yourself exempt from the very same standards. Typical hypocrite religious.
But you don't believe it to be a fact, even though many would understand it as such. I can assert that God exists, using creation as proof.
Sure, but is there a proof that the writer is God himself? You have adopted a double standard to suit your objective. On one hand you claim that when you can't "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" something, it does not exist. On the other you claim that Even if you can't "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" God, he still exists. Then it gets even funnier, you claim that he exists there where no freaking way me or you or any human can go and assert his existence while providing no proof [Because its freaking impossible.. No shit, Sherlock]. That's some crazy shit mate, some really crazy shit.
Which book? I said "A well written book is the proof of a writer you don't need to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" the writer in order to know that a writer of this book exists, a book does not write itself, there must be a writer." I didn't say the writer is God. I didn't say that the painting was painted by painter A I said the painting is proof of a painter. Likewise creation is proof of creator, which is God. At this point I'm proving the existence of someone that is responsible for the creation of our universe and everything that is in it. You can prove that a painting was painted by painter A if painter A has claimed responsibility.
The book that you were talking about.. Oh, I'm sorry.. I didn't know that you have a tendency of random blabber in the middle of a discussion.. I asked what's your proof that God exists, You replied a book is the proof of a writer.. It was only normal for me to comprehend that you were talking about God.. Are you sure? And if you are then how? When you can't say that the painting was painted by painter A, how can you claim that creator is the God? and Not the Three Headed Clown Monster? You aint proving shit mate.. It's an established fact that 'something' (Not someone) is responsible for the creation of universe and everything that is in it. What is that something? I don't know and you, for sure, know no better than me.
Okay forget the "name" God. The proof of a Creator is His Creation. There's a Creator who is responsible for the Creation of everything. Are you denying that creation is no proof for a creator? If so, it's same as saying that: - a well written book has no writer - a website has no coder - a car has no manufacturer - a painting has no painter Do you deny there's a Creator for a our universe?
Now we are talking, baby!! No, I do not deny that at all. Only a fool will deny that. I only reject the way your kind (religious people) imply the existence of that creator. The 'creator' is a 'factor', it can be an 'event' or an 'entity'. What is it actually? No one knows, as of now. I've already said - Until we find out what exactly triggered the events that led us to where we are now and how exactly those events took place, its utter ignorance to claim to know what created the universe. When anyone claims that s/he knows that God created the universe, that ignorance is apparent.
Nope. The Next obvious question is "HOW". How it is created? We have the creation present, and we have no freaking idea how it was created.. So First we need to find out "How exactly". Once we find that out, then the Next obvious question will be "WHAT". What created it? We have the creation present, and we now know how it was created... No.. The investigation of creation can and will lead us to 'how' and 'what'.. And that's what we are doing..
Is it possible that this Creator of all creation (including this universe) may have communicated with us?
Us as in humans? The honest answer for anyone for that question is - 'I don't Know' Unless we can find out how this universe was created and what created it, We are not able to deduce that the "creator" is an 'entity' and it is even able to communicate, and whether it indeed communicated with humans. At this point, no one can claim one way or another.
It has to be an entity that is responsible for the creation of everything, because if it was not, then what is it? an event? An event has a beginning, a cause, an event is a creation in and of itself, so it was not an event that is responsible for the creation of everything. Was it nothing? Nothing creates nothing, something creates something, and this something that created something must have always existed because an infinite loop of creation is impossible, it must end somewhere which is this "creator" that is responsible for the creation of everything. We know that this entity is extremely intelligent because the complexity of our universe. A clock has an intelligent designer, likewise our universe has an intelligent designer, because the universe is far more complex then a simple clock. Does this prove that this creator is the God of the Muslims? no. It proves that we as humans, and this universe, and whatever else that we haven't discovered yet have been purposefully designed and created, and this creator continues to sustain His creation. Do you deny that this creator is an intelligent designer?
Now you are back to the same bullcrap.. Your idea is - You: "Look mate, listen, although I don't have shit for proof, but whatever I'm saying is right." Me: "Nope, you can't claim that you are right because you don't have proof" You: "Do you have proof to prove otherwise"? Me: "Obviously not.." You: "Hence proved that I'm right!! YEEEEHAAA lets go baby!!!" You don't even know whether it is an entity or an Event..You assume that it is an entity. If nothing creates nothing, then there has to be something that can create that entity. What created it? If you can assume that an entity was ever-existing, why cant I assume an event that can trigger itself? If I'm to assume that an entity came out of nothing and created universe out of nothing, then I have no problem assuming that the universe itself came out of nothing without the need of any creator.. If the entity does not need another entity as creator, universe does not need a creator either. If we are simply assuming a world where anything can happen, then in that world, well, anything can happen.. Even the universe can make itself. When I don't know whether it was indeed a creator, who am I to claim that it was an intelligent designer? What proof do I have to support that claim? Or you or anyone else for that matter? To claim it was an intelligent designer, first you have to establish the proof of existence of such designer beyond any reasonable doubt and explain how the designer came into existence. You have no idea how it was created, you have no idea what created it, you have no knowledge of it.. All you have is a mere assumption without any proof to back it up, but you are simply dishonest to acknowledge your lack of knowledge..
I don't know why you'd want to. That would make your god directly responsible for babies with aids, larva that feast on the eye balls of children and all sorts of things which, if consciously created, would amount to nothing but works of utter evil and spite. Though i do agree that if your vicious, petty and spiteful god did exist, the inventive ways he has devised for inflicting an agonising death on countless children sounds exactly like the kind of thing this filthy animal would do. "look how many ways have been created to inflict pain and suffering on children. That's evidence for my god" - well done, you just destroyed your own argument.
What's new in that? They do it everyday.. Don't you love it when Religious people get in to arguments, and they throw deepest thoughts, deeper than the freaking Mariana Trench, and then screw it up royally in the end?
God makes human suffer (1) To punish them for sins or (2) To test them A child with an illness or the death of a child is a test or a punishment for the parents, guardian (s) or whoever else. It's also worthy to note that death of a child or an illness of a child is not always caused by God, it could have been caused by someone else, like someone kills a child, an illness could also be caused by someone else. There are other reasons why God allows humans to suffer, one of them is to discipline them, to teach them patience, to teach them endurance, ever heard of "no pain no gain"? If you ever been to gym, when you are lifting weights, you are going through pain, you have to in order to gain muscle. The argument that "God does not exist because humans suffer" does not work.
Excuse me IsraeI, It might hurt your feelings but that God doesn't sound like merciful, caring and kind savior. Instead it sounds like pathetic, sadistic, merciless, torturous maniac.. What kind of retard justice is it to punish a baby for the sins of his/her parents, that s/he had no control on? Parents committed sin and God said - "I'm gonna teach these insects a lesson, I'm gonna give their child an incurable disease the he will suffer from for rest of his pathetic life!! What a wonderful justice" Is that right? I wonder what is the gain for a woman who just went through the endless pain of being raped by a sick bastard?
So you understand that adult suffering can be justified ? Good. God may have a good reason to make the child suffer as well, maybe suffering makes the child stronger? Which it does, remember, no pain, no gain! And like I said, this suffering of the child makes the parents and others suffer as well, so it's a form of punishment or is a trial. Whatever God does, there is great wisdom behind it, sometimes this reason why God did something is obvious, sometimes it is not so obvious, e.g. I cannot tell you why God forbade pork, but I'm certain He has a good reason for it. You asked a good question - "What has a woman to gain from being raped" God is not responsible for a woman getting raped, someone is responsible and that person is will be punished by God, and the woman may get compensated, that's what the day of judgement is for, the day where God will punish or reward people for their actions. There are some lessons she can learn: 1. She can reduce the risks of getting raped by putting on some more clothes 2. She can be more obedient to God in order to get His protecttion. Now. You made the claim that if someone causes others to suffer he is NOT merciful..which is simply not true. If you put someone in jail (jail is a place of suffering), does it mean you are not merciful? no it doesn't because you have a REASON to put that person in jail. It all comes down to REASON or WHY...and this reasoning that God uses is like I said sometimes obvious and understandable but sometimes it is knowledge that he has kept to Himself.
You'd say that to a blind child, a rape victim and a 90 year old woman caring for her severely disabled son, would you? Filth, you are utter filth. Though what should we expect from someone who worships a spiteful sadistic god if not spiteful and sadistic attitudes towards human suffering. Look what this delusion has made of you. Seriously, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and the disgusting things your putrid little cult has made you publicly claim, because you're starting to sound like a psychopath. I just hope you don't "test" or "punish" your own children with torture, rape and an agonising drawn out death. After all, that's how love manifests in your mind doesn't it, by either inflicting or observing with folded arms unimaginable suffering. So to the people who ask me why i spend so much time dismantling religion, this is why. It's to expose people like Israel and the things he would prefer to keep secret. I want these people outed and i want their poisonous little views exposed. I want people to know what he thinks of rape victims, disabled children and the abused, which, according to his very own words, are justly punished sinners deserving of every ounce of suffering they are forced to endure. What, besides religion, could possibly justify such a poisonous view? Just wanted to quote that so people can see it. Keep talking mate, it's absolute gold. A much better argument against religion than anything i could say. you just keep on outing yourself for what you are.
@IsraeI "She can reduce the risks of getting raped by putting on some more clothes".Some women in Afganistan wear full body burkas,yet some still get raped....how do you account for this?