God doesnt exist

It seems you are trying to shave the edges off of your argument. After trying to claim that an assertion is the same as the regection of that assertion you now seem to be claiming that they are entirely different. Answer the following question yes or no and have a think about what direction you want to take your argument in.

Is a baseless assertion equally as valid as the regection of that assertion?

 

God, the source of all things, the Alpha and Omega.
Santa, the source of all things, the Alpha and Omega.
Any stupid word, the source of all things, the Alpha and Omega.

Therefore

God=Santa=Any stupid word

You have not shown there is anything which is the source of all things, the Alpha and Omega but you want special consideration for your unproven theory. This is your belief and deserve no more special consideration than a child believing in Santa.

 

lol, If you insist on adding bits and pieces that you make up onto what I said, then it does your postings no good. They still look idiotic.


I said theories in the absense of proof are simply beliefs. That was my original statement. The assertion without proof, something exists, and something does not exist - on a scientific basis (I've highlighted this bit for you, before you (again) post something incredibly silly) are equal. Nowhere have I said that belief A is equal to belief B - when A and B are different items.

If you want to equal a belief on item A with a belief on item B, you must first equate item A and B.

For instance, I believe an abject is called a chair. You belief its a table. On the basis that we both hold beliefs, the item cannot possible be both a chair and a table - you would first have to either 1. prove that a chair is equal to a table, or b. Assume they are both equal and provide a basis for doing so.

All I've said is that both claims re a table and chair, in the absense of proof, are simply beliefs.

So, given your insistence on stating all beliefs are eqaul, please provide your basis for doing so.

Again, I've noted you've failed to provide your definition of Santa. Whats this, your 4th time refusing to do so?
Isn't it hyprocritcal of you to demand I define God, and I do so, and then you refuse to define your own creations?



Or will you fall back on the atheist defence of 'Na na na na I don't have to prove anything!'.

 

I've given you my definition. Are you going to define Santa as requested or continue being the hyprocrit, demanding definitions but giving none?

 

My,my lets go over this again for you. Whats this, 5th time for you?

'In the absense of proof, all theories are simply beliefs'.

So, your first statement is a belief. And what do you know, its a religious statement. And what do you know, the overwhelming majority of religious people never claimed to have scientific proof - they base their beliefs on faith and their own reasoning.
So, given that religious people don't claim in the first instance to have any scientific proof, we can both agree that their assertion 'God exists' is simply a belief.

Your second line - presumably you're stating it as a belief?
Your third line - presumably you're stating it as a belief?

In which case all you've done is post three assertions which are simply your beliefs. You conclude by saying something nonsensical along the lines of you belief 'any stupid word' is the creator. If you want to belief that, thats fine. I'm sure there's not too many people bothered if you want to believe in something. As it stands, you already believe there's no God. You don't have evidence for it, it just simply a belief, much like others believe there is a god.

So none of your post actuall has any scientific merit in it. Its all simply a statement of belief - and as I've pointed out, atheists simply believe in an assertion, rather than having any proof behind it.

 

1. If entropy is increasing, and science states that entropy cannot be decreased, then what is the original source(cause) of zero entropy?
2. This is the question that atheists avoid and have constantly ran away from on this thread - in the absence of a God, what is the scientific explanation for consciousness and it's source, hmmm?

 

A guy in sandals of course! Well, maybe not him but his recluse dad.

 

Rockyg your reluctance to answer such a simple question betrays The inadequacy of your argument. Or is is because answering would reveal that you are trying to draw compasisons where no comparison exists , certainly a comparison no more valid than making a comparison between the claim that Santa exists and the rejection of that assertion.

 

Lol when you say it like tat it sounds retarded, and frighteningly, exactly what they believe.

 

Personally, if there was a supernatural realm, I would like to elect for a pantheon of imperfect beings. It would explain a lot. Zeus, being unable to keep it in his pants, etc.

 

@Jackuul, I reject the concept of a supernatural realm and the superstitions attached.

What if "God" could be explained scientifically?

Personally, I reject the Catholic concept of a God that is separate and apart. I'm more along the lines of God as a scientific networking of consciousness, i.e. a group consciousness. This is more along the lines of what Einstein believed.

 

Let's start up the DP Hellenistic Pantheist's Union!

 

stOx, you asked for my definition of God. I gave it. You want to say God is equal to Santa, therefore I'm asking you for your definition of Santa.

For the 5th time, Can you define Santa?

Its getting to the point where you demaning definitions from everyone and willing to provide nothing yourself. Are you a hypocrit just out for link bait perhaps?

Lets have your wonderous defintion. in the absense of same, we can only conclude you are either unable / afraid to provide a definition, or simply being hyprocritical. Its amusing to note that a five year old is able to provide a sentance on what Santa is, and yet five times you've avoided the question at all costs.

Once again, Can you define Santa?

 

A mythical, magical man that knows if you've been bad or good and rewards or punishes you based on that.....hmmmm, are god and santa one in the same?

 

Don't forget he is also invisible, probably, and undetectable. And he has whatever other attributes we need to render any test you propose invalid. Shoot, prove his nonexistance.

Your definition of god was just regurgitated rhetoric, as vague as possible and the least meaningful sentence I have ever seen. Give us specifics, not just parroted buzz words.

 

I thought this was interesting:

 

I believe in God... God is only a way to explain why everything is real and not a zero

 

I really didn't think that you'd fall into the trap of comparing God and Santa, but never mind, your choice. Amateur!


So given that God is believed to be the creator of the universe (as per the definition you asked for and I gave), and in your definition you make no mention of Santa having anything to do with being the creator of the universe (your definition), its fair to say that your attempt to equate the a belief in God with a belief in Santa is false.


How can two things be equal if they do not share the same attributes? As I've said before, you are simply attempting to equate a chair and a table given that both have one attribue in common - a leg. How can Santa be equal to God if (by your own defintion) Santa had nothing to do with the creation of the universe? That he was not the alpha and omega? Childish attempts. Any serious atheist would never attempt to equate Santa with God on such a nonsensical basis.

Your argument that Santa is equal to God is similar to attempting to argue that chair is equal to a table. Its absurd. Not to mention incredibly dumb.

Your position and statements are absurd. From someone so acclaimed in dealing with facts, all you have to back them up is -nothing! Nada! you simply believe in assertions - equally as unproven as religious assertions. That you choose to mock religious people for believing assertions and ignore your own swallowing hook, line and sinker statements equally unproven makes you...well, a hyprocrit.


Therefore what I posted first day holds true - statements without proof are simply beliefs. The atheist assertion that 'God does not exist' is the polar opposite of the religious assertion 'God does exist'. Neither are factual or supported by science in any way. The only thing that can be said is at least the religious people recognise their position is one of belief, whilst the atheist is simply deluded.

 

Oh so you are demanding special concessions for your god not afforded to other equally insupprted claims, just like I accused you of doing.

Now disprove Santa or stop disbelievng in him.

 

Well you asked for my definition of God, and I gave him as the alpha and Omega, the creator of all things.

Despite being given the liberty of putting forth your own definition of Santa, you failed to place him on a similar footing to the God belief. And yet you insist both beliefs are equal! If item A created all things, and item B did not, how can they possibly be equal?! Are tables and chairs equal two because they have one attribute in common -legs?!

Even I, as uneducated as I am, can tell you you should have claimed Santa also created all things so as to support your claim all beliefs are equal.


My claim in the first post on this thread said all assertions without proof were simply beliefs. Your assertion about Santa is a belief, my assertion about God is a belief. But clearly, given the different attributes of each, they can not be equal.


Are you still going to equate Santa and God going forward? You can revise your definition of Santa if you wish? I won't object in the slightest! At least we may be able to move forward then from your absurd claim all beliefs are the same.