Is God "Necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
Confuse the theist with a circle argument:

The proof that God doesn't exist is that the world exists without the need for God.
As the world does exist without a God, a God is not necessary for the world to exist.
As God is not necessary, God does not exist.

That will keep them spinning for a while.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
16-05-2012, 04:57 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 12:11 PM)Egor Wrote:  Jesus is a way for us to see God. Presumably he is God as a person. We can look at Jesus and see what it would be like to be God as a human being.

Still... I don't see why the Father, being capable of anything and everything, couldn't just come as a human being to show us what he'd be like as a human being. I don't understand the necessity of using Jesus for such a role. And because the Father could fulfill the Son's duties, an argument for God out of necessity would do a horrible job proving the Son existed.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2012 05:16 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 12:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 12:11 PM)Egor Wrote:  e. God experiences what we experience.
e. Most ludicrous one yet. Requires time. THE definition of Anthropomorphism.

Well Fullerene, there's anthropomorphism and then there's the anthropic principle. The former is a psychological tendency or literary technique while the latter has quite a bit of evidential support. If the act of observation is the act of creation/manifestation/realization, then I'm not at all sure I'd call myself an atheist anymore. To paraphrase Pogo, "We have met this God and it is us."

I personally don't see that reinterpretation of God as being inconsistent with the teachings of the Christ. In fact, I think it may very well be what the Christ was saying all along. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2012 06:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 05:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 12:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  e. Most ludicrous one yet. Requires time. THE definition of Anthropomorphism.


Well Fullerene, there's anthropomorphism and then there's the anthropic principle. The former is a psychological tendency or literary technique while the latter has quite a bit of evidential support. If the act of observation is the act of creation/manifestation/realization, then I'm not at all sure I'd call myself an atheist anymore. To paraphrase Pogo, "We have met this God and it is us."

I personally don't see that reinterpretation of God as being inconsistent with the teachings of the Christ. In fact, I think it may very well be what the Christ was saying all along. Wink


OMG. You're turning into He Who Must Not Be Named ?? Tongue (BTW I know the difference).

a. Consistent or not, it's deeply flawed, philosophically, in every way. Implies "new experience" is possible, etc etc. Nope. Too "creaturely" for words. Head may explode. Not "infinite perfection", if "new" experience" possible, lacking something... bla bla bla. Out by definition. Whole process of "transformation" from one state to next requires, a priori, dimensions of "existence", in which it exists, thus not "creator". Must have misunderstood ??

b. Which "christ" ?

1. Salvific one ? Nope. God changed, (became "appeased"). Out.

2. Political "messiah" ? Nope. Jerusalem destroyed. Kingdom will never return. Out.

3. The Yeshua one ? Got a week ?

c "Observation" is not "creation", except in Quantum sense....more like "alteration". Photons may interect in observstion, but proposal they "create" is ridiculous. Did I misconstrue ? As I said last week ... there's this rock "over there". When I COME BACK, it's still there.

d. Lanza totally screwed up. Shall I "do" the 7 ?

e. Just beginning to think about time. Like some of these graphics, showing collapsing processes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&...r_FuVMC3fw Unless ALL of Philosophy, and ALL of Theology doesn't hurry up, and take this ONE problem into account, will be anachronism in 25 years.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 06:01 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 05:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Well Fullerene, there's anthropomorphism and then there's the anthropic principle. The former is a psychological tendency or literary technique while the latter has quite a bit of evidential support. If the act of observation is the act of creation/manifestation/realization, then I'm not at all sure I'd call myself an atheist anymore. To paraphrase Pogo, "We have met this God and it is us."

I personally don't see that reinterpretation of God as being inconsistent with the teachings of the Christ. In fact, I think it may very well be what the Christ was saying all along. Wink


OMG. You're turning into He Who Must Not Be Named ?? Tongue (BTW I know the difference).

Just a word of caution Fullerene, don't miss the old asshole Egor so much that you feel the need to fill the vacancy.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 06:06 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 06:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  OMG. You're turning into He Who Must Not Be Named ?? Tongue (BTW I know the difference).


Just a word of caution Fullerene, don't miss the old asshole Egor so much that you feel the need to fill the vacancy.


Nothing wrong with reacting when provoked. Not a child. New one just as illogical as old one. Not personal. Don't be deceived. Nothing has changed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-05-2012, 06:27 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 06:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 06:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Just a word of caution Fullerene, don't miss the old asshole Egor so much that you feel the need to fill the vacancy.


Nothing wrong with reacting when provoked. Not a child. New one just as illogical as old one. Not personal. Don't be deceived. Nothing has changed.

I'm never deceived because I don't believe in dick, BuckminstersSatchel. I don't "believe" at all. And what has changed in Egor is the only thing I give a shit about. Dude's trying to not be an asshole. That's all I give a shit about. And thinking there's nothing wrong with reacting when provoked feels childish to me. ... Oh, and logic ain't some sorta divine gospel, it's already told us as much.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 06:40 PM
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
Atheists live on this planet just fine, hence God is no needed.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 03:09 AM
 
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 06:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm never deceived because I don't believe in dick, BuckminstersSatchel. I don't "believe" at all. And what has changed in Egor is the only thing I give a shit about. Dude's trying to not be an asshole. That's all I give a shit about. And thinking there's nothing wrong with reacting when provoked feels childish to me. ... Oh, and logic ain't some sorta divine gospel, it's already told us as much.

I must say, GirlyMan, I was about to give it all up until I read this. I was about to tell everyone what they could do with their rep points if getting in the green means tolerating people who follow me around the forum just to insult me. So, thank you for your encouragement once again. Bowing

It's interesting that you say that Jesus may have meant all along that we are God. He certianly seems to allude to that in the latter chapters of John and most definitely in the Gospel of Thomas.

As for being an atheist. I no longer would discourage you from that. If all there is is atheism or Christian-type faith, then it's better to be an atheist. I have been thinking a lot about the lucid spiritual plane we all must go to when we die, and the more I contemplate it, the less reason I see for there to be any particular belief in God, especially if God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness. So, it's ironic and funny that you think you may not be an atheist and I'm thinking I may not be a theist. Perhaps we'll meet in the middle somewhere and find the truth. Shocking
Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2012, 03:12 AM
 
RE: Is God "Necessary"?
(16-05-2012 04:57 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Still... I don't see why the Father, being capable of anything and everything, couldn't just come as a human being to show us what he'd be like as a human being. I don't understand the necessity of using Jesus for such a role. And because the Father could fulfill the Son's duties, an argument for God out of necessity would do a horrible job proving the Son existed.

Fair enough. I certainly don't want to step in and start defending Christian theology when I don't believe it to begin with. No
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: