6 Proofs That God Exists

[Meriweather]

Within these threads, there are various believers who, within incremental steps, will insist they know with 100% certainty and possessing 0% facts that their individual understanding of Gods and the Bible leads them to know that Gods and the Bible range everywhere from being literally true, to kinda, sorta’ true, to mostly true but you have to know the real parts from the not so real parts, to the “The first thing to understand is that Biblical accounts are about teaching a principled value in a story form”, meaning none of it is true.

To understand a language, delve into the basics. Does it use subjective words, such as 'anger' or does it use object oriented words--i.e. 'flaring nostrils' to mean anger? Does the language use words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs....does it arrange language into songs, poetry, lists?

Picture English no longer used as a language, but thousands of years from now, people uncover our modern English and some of our books. What if they begin by reading Casey at the Bat as a sports rule book; they take idioms literally. They stumble upon a child's beginning science book, note the picture labeled "Bat" and picture Casey at the Bat holding a flying mammal. We must first understand the original language and how it was used.

I teach English. When I tell the students to write a Fable, the student who turns in a Just So story is going to get points off. We want students to be able to identify the elements of each type of story--along with the moral and the theme. Simply because a story starts out, Once upon a time there was a unicorn, does not make the moral or theme of the story false. Just because there is a little girl in the story about a unicorn, it does not follow that since there are no such things as unicorns, there are no such things as little girls either.

Modern English didn't invent fables, myths, embroidered tales, legends etc. They are simply still in use--just as they were in use in Biblical times. Take a piece of paper, divide it into columns of Just So, Myths, Fables, Legends, etc., etc. etc. to through the Bible making notes under column headings, and you will see ancient people were just as familiar with the different types of stories as we are today. It doesn't mean the story and the people are lying, it is simply presenting facts, principles, etc. in a story form. They had something of import to impart. For those of us who majored in journalism, it is also fun to look for the slant in the story being told (a slant is often there).

Look, I get that there are those who want to take everything about God literally, especially the Bible. But what that brings us is pretty much the same as imagining Casey with a mammal, and Casey at the Bat as some ancient sport involving a mammal, long forgotten. However, even when some futuristic person is picturing a mammal, my money is that he is still able to accurately state the theme of Casey at the Bat. In the same way, people today who do take the Bible literally, usually have the themes, morals, principles correct.

 

[Batcat]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The Bible says plenty about God. Perhaps not a detailed description of exactly what God is but it speaks of his creations, his commands, his laws, and his actions.

Very true. Still we have no detailed description as you mention probably because it is impossible for us to describe God adequately.

We know that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, a human contrivance in an attempt to understand the natural world, and as a means of political and social control.

That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I once heard a wise person call religion a “crutch.”

Along came a time when I needed a crutch and I thank God that he was there to help me.

You of course will laugh at that but if things ever go terribly bad for you try prayer. It doesn't cost anything except perhaps your pride and there is a possibility the results will surprise you.

 

[Meriweather]

A legitimate question is ask is, “with such a variance of believers, believing such a variance of interpretations of Biblical tales, why should the non-believer accept any of it”?

Why should anyone accept your interpretation vs, that of a literalist?

They shouldn't. Nor am I asking anyone to do so. One thing I do wish to make clear is that it is not 'my' interpretation. For me to claim so would be plagiarizing the commentaries and explanation of others--many of them ancient Jewish rabbis, others modern scholars of today whose first language is Hebrew.

I've mentioned many times that the Protestant Reformation was proclaiming that anyone could read the Bible and understand exactly what it said/meant for him/herself. I wholeheartedly disagree with that position because too much is lost in simply reading.

One thing to keep in mind with me is that like many others here, the Bible often did not make sense to me. Since I know God Is, becoming an atheist wasn't an option for me. The questions I tackled were, "Who wrote this thing and why did they write it the way they did?" It has been a fascinating journey, a fascinating study. However it has been long, and I recognize doing this study is not for everyone...perhaps not for nearly anyone. We have lives to live and other hobbies. This is one I just happened to pick up on for a number of reasons.

I share, nothing more. I trust everyone can make their own assessments of the perspective I present, and/or dismiss it entirely. We're just talking.

 

[Meriweather]

I once heard a wise person call religion a “crutch.”

Along came a time when I needed a crutch and I thank God that he was there to help me.

I can relate. My atheist husband once said religion was a crutch and I'd be much stronger without it. I told him I thought of religion more as an airplane. It was like going somewhere much more quickly, but I'd be waiting for him once he finished that same trip by land. Crutch or airplane...it is worthwhile.

 

[Hollie]

Within these threads, there are various believers who, within incremental steps, will insist they know with 100% certainty and possessing 0% facts that their individual understanding of Gods and the Bible leads them to know that Gods and the Bible range everywhere from being literally true, to kinda, sorta’ true, to mostly true but you have to know the real parts from the not so real parts, to the “The first thing to understand is that Biblical accounts are about teaching a principled value in a story form”, meaning none of it is true.

To understand a language, delve into the basics. Does it use subjective words, such as 'anger' or does it use object oriented words--i.e. 'flaring nostrils' to mean anger? Does the language use words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs....does it arrange language into songs, poetry, lists?

Picture English no longer used as a language, but thousands of years from now, people uncover our modern English and some of our books. What if they begin by reading Casey at the Bat as a sports rule book; they take idioms literally. They stumble upon a child's beginning science book, note the picture labeled "Bat" and picture Casey at the Bat holding a flying mammal. We must first understand the original language and how it was used.

I teach English. When I tell the students to write a Fable, the student who turns in a Just So story is going to get points off. We want students to be able to identify the elements of each type of story--along with the moral and the theme. Simply because a story starts out, Once upon a time there was a unicorn, does not make the moral or theme of the story false. Just because there is a little girl in the story about a unicorn, it does not follow that since there are no such things as unicorns, there are no such things as little girls either.

Modern English didn't invent fables, myths, embroidered tales, legends etc. They are simply still in use--just as they were in use in Biblical times. Take a piece of paper, divide it into columns of Just So, Myths, Fables, Legends, etc., etc. etc. to through the Bible making notes under column headings, and you will see ancient people were just as familiar with the different types of stories as we are today. It doesn't mean the story and the people are lying, it is simply presenting facts, principles, etc. in a story form. They had something of import to impart. For those of us who majored in journalism, it is also fun to look for the slant in the story being told (a slant is often there).

Look, I get that there are those who want to take everything about God literally, especially the Bible. But what that brings us is pretty much the same as imagining Casey with a mammal, and Casey at the Bat as some ancient sport involving a mammal, long forgotten. However, even when some futuristic person is picturing a mammal, my money is that he is still able to accurately state the theme of Casey at the Bat. In the same way, people today who do take the Bible literally, usually have the themes, morals, principles correct.

That’s fine but it does nothing to address the divide, (as wide as heaven itself), between the literalists and the “well, this is what it really means’ists”.

I can’t speculate on whether or not some future civilization decides that Casey at the Bat is a literal rendering of a supernatural event. Whether that future civilization decides that The Cat in The Hat is a literal rendering of the supernatural creation of this planet I also won’t speculate on.

So, we seem to be driving around that Cul de sac of “… because I say so”, as it applies to your version of Biblical events vs. the the version of the Biblical literalist.

If the stories and fables are exactly that, why attach an element of supernaturalism to those stories and fables and try to connect a supernatural entity to them? Why is the Bible connected to the Gods and not Homer’s Iliad?

 

[BreezeWood]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory say otherwise.

.
they've gone delusional over the most remote possibility of all - sortof fits their profile, to make real what is obviously false.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

View attachment 495697

.
nothing new there -
.
This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force ...
.
only proves there has never been a time matter or energy have not existed ... also they left out - the cyclical nature of the bb.

That's the stupidest logic ever.

.

That's the stupidest logic ever.

.
which logic is that - - there has never been a time matter or energy have not existed - bb is cyclical ... or
.

they've gone delusional over the most remote possibility of all - sortof fits their profile, to make real what is obviously false.

.
the latter, corruption through persuasion ... first persuading yourself ( not very hard ) that christianity is a religion - then setting out to do to everyone else what you have done to yourself.

* the latter is the obvious conclusion for the errant assertion - including the other two.


.

 

[ding]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory say otherwise.

.
they've gone delusional over the most remote possibility of all - sortof fits their profile, to make real what is obviously false.

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

View attachment 495697

.
nothing new there -
.
This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force ...
.
only proves there has never been a time matter or energy have not existed ... also they left out - the cyclical nature of the bb.

That's the stupidest logic ever.

.

That's the stupidest logic ever.

.
which logic is that - - there has never been a time matter or energy have not existed - bb is cyclical ... or
.

they've gone delusional over the most remote possibility of all - sortof fits their profile, to make real what is obviously false.

.
the latter, corruption through persuasion ... first persuading yourself ( not very hard ) that christianity is a religion - then setting out to do to everyone else what you have done to yourself.

* the latter is the obvious conclusion for the errant assertion - including the other two.


.

Your logic that the universe occupying the space size of a proton means that matter has always existed.

How do you explain the cosmic background radiation? What created that? Why did matter occupy the space the size of a proton? Why did the universe expand?

You have so many holes in your belief about the origin of space and time it's not funny.

 

[Meriweather]

I can’t speculate on whether or not some future civilization decides that Casey at the Bat is a literal rendering of a supernatural event.

That's just it. You could if you studied the history, culture, language, and literature of those times. Instead, what has been happening the last few hundred years is that some denominations dismiss the need for this; that understanding modern English and living in modern Western culture doesn't make a difference in Bible perception--The Protestant Reformation taught, take the modern English literally...and that's enough. It's why some Protestant sects take the Bible literally, and why Catholics and Orthodox do not.

"Enough" is not all. Arithmetic is enough for most people. But it is not all the math there is. Same with the Bible.

 

[Slade3200]

Within these threads, there are various believers who, within incremental steps, will insist they know with 100% certainty and possessing 0% facts that their individual understanding of Gods and the Bible leads them to know that Gods and the Bible range everywhere from being literally true, to kinda, sorta’ true, to mostly true but you have to know the real parts from the not so real parts, to the “The first thing to understand is that Biblical accounts are about teaching a principled value in a story form”, meaning none of it is true.

To understand a language, delve into the basics. Does it use subjective words, such as 'anger' or does it use object oriented words--i.e. 'flaring nostrils' to mean anger? Does the language use words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs....does it arrange language into songs, poetry, lists?

Picture English no longer used as a language, but thousands of years from now, people uncover our modern English and some of our books. What if they begin by reading Casey at the Bat as a sports rule book; they take idioms literally. They stumble upon a child's beginning science book, note the picture labeled "Bat" and picture Casey at the Bat holding a flying mammal. We must first understand the original language and how it was used.

I teach English. When I tell the students to write a Fable, the student who turns in a Just So story is going to get points off. We want students to be able to identify the elements of each type of story--along with the moral and the theme. Simply because a story starts out, Once upon a time there was a unicorn, does not make the moral or theme of the story false. Just because there is a little girl in the story about a unicorn, it does not follow that since there are no such things as unicorns, there are no such things as little girls either.

Modern English didn't invent fables, myths, embroidered tales, legends etc. They are simply still in use--just as they were in use in Biblical times. Take a piece of paper, divide it into columns of Just So, Myths, Fables, Legends, etc., etc. etc. to through the Bible making notes under column headings, and you will see ancient people were just as familiar with the different types of stories as we are today. It doesn't mean the story and the people are lying, it is simply presenting facts, principles, etc. in a story form. They had something of import to impart. For those of us who majored in journalism, it is also fun to look for the slant in the story being told (a slant is often there).

Look, I get that there are those who want to take everything about God literally, especially the Bible. But what that brings us is pretty much the same as imagining Casey with a mammal, and Casey at the Bat as some ancient sport involving a mammal, long forgotten. However, even when some futuristic person is picturing a mammal, my money is that he is still able to accurately state the theme of Casey at the Bat. In the same way, people today who do take the Bible literally, usually have the themes, morals, principles correct.

That’s fine but it does nothing to address the divide, (as wide as heaven itself), between the literalists and the “well, this is what it really means’ists”.

I can’t speculate on whether or not some future civilization decides that Casey at the Bat is a literal rendering of a supernatural event. Whether that future civilization decides that The Cat in The Hat is a literal rendering of the supernatural creation of this planet I also won’t speculate on.

So, we seem to be driving around that Cul de sac of “… because I say so”, as it applies to your version of Biblical events vs. the the version of the Biblical literalist.

If the stories and fables are exactly that, why attach an element of supernaturalism to those stories and fables and try to connect a supernatural entity to them? Why is the Bible connected to the Gods and not Homer’s Iliad?

Very well said and I think the answer is obvious. Because the Bible is associated with the church and less designed like fable stories and more designed like a doctrine for how to live life by a defined set of laws. The church is ran by men and has always held power. We know power corrupts. We know the church has had a lot corruption for centuries. The church has used the Bible in a way to teach people how to live and also to control them. There was a time when questioning the Bible meant death punishment or banishment. The punishment for not beiiving the Bible and in Jesus is an eternity in hell. That point right there proves to me that is was written by man and not a divine force

 

[Meriweather]

So, we seem to be driving around that Cul de sac of “… because I say so”, as it applies to your version of Biblical events vs. the the version of the Biblical literalist.

It has nothing to do with anyone in whatever camp saying, "Because I say so." People can earnestly and sincerely say that they take ever modern English word in the Bible literally. Personally, I find nothing wrong with that. The problem is with those who do not even believe in God insisting that everyone who does is required to take the Bible literally. Why do those who do not believe in God insist that I, who does believe in God, take the Bible literally? I have never understood why some atheists get so upset by believers not taking the Bible literally.

So let's start with you. Why are you bothered that I don't take the Bible literally?

 

[Hollie]

I can’t speculate on whether or not some future civilization decides that Casey at the Bat is a literal rendering of a supernatural event.

That's just it. You could if you studied the history, culture, language, and literature of those times. Instead, what has been happening the last few hundred years is that some denominations dismiss the need for this; that understanding modern English and living in modern Western culture doesn't make a difference in Bible perception--The Protestant Reformation taught, take the modern English literally...and that's enough. It's why some Protestant sects take the Bible literally, and why Catholics and Orthodox do not.

"Enough" is not all. Arithmetic is enough for most people. But it is not all the math there is. Same with the Bible.

No reason to think that some future civilization would mistake Casey, at the Bat or otherwise, being worshipped as a supernatural entity.

The attachment of Gods to the Bible is really no different than the ancient Greeks attaching their gods to unique cultural tales and fables: Clash of the Titans, Prometheus and the Theft of Fire, etc. with lots of Gods needing to be appeased.

Those fables are now looked upon as quaint tales with a “theme” perhaps but they’re not materially different than the successor Gods who flood the planet, require animal sacrifice and rule over humanity with anger and vengeance.

I’m not at all bothered that you don’t the Bible literally. I just find it curious that believers will pick and choose those component parts of the Bible which don’t offend certain sensibilities. ​

 

[emilynghiem]

1. What PROOF do you have that there was NOTHING before this supposed "beginning"?
Scientists THEORIZE, they don't state theories as FACT. If they do, they are CHARLATANS!
The fact that this idiot is taking science OUT of the context of theory, shows he knows NOTHING about what he's spewing!!

2. Design originates from the science fact, that when a DNA combines with other DNA, it produces a pattern that has been used previously, like a living copy machine. As far as the universe is concerned, it was shaped from star explosions, planet and sun gravity, and numerous other scientific works. To think that everything is based on a "supernatural" entity is ludicrous and nothing more than a crutch for refusing to see reality, and spreading more lies.

3. Life. Wow, this guy is delusional to the point of needing to be put in a rubber room!
Life evolved from chemicals that settled on this rock from meteors and other fragments, starting a chain reaction of embryonic proportions.

4. Morals are a human concept. There is nothing extraterrestrial about them. Just as what is "right" and what is "wrong" are human concepts, created by humans to enslave other humans to the will of those in charge. Just like the fantasy story you call the Bible!

5. Atheism is NOT based on materialism, but Catholicism is!!! Free will is a another human concept that really can only exist if there are NO laws and no one in power to maintain a particular thought or agenda in human society. Since humans have created laws and agendas for society to live by, there can be NO free will.

6. Reasoning is only a side effect of language and society being used to create and help society, and its members, make decisions without beating each other over the head with sticks.

This guy is basically saying, that some phantom somewhere, hiding in plain sight, has his puppet strings attached to everything in the universe, all puppeting everything all at once.

This jerk is taking it upon himself to act like the universal reservoir of ultimate knowledge!
He's GOT to be a Democrat.......thinking he knows EVERYTHING there is to know about EVERYTHING!!!


Society DEMANDS that this lunatic be locked up for our safety!!

Well stated Toffeenut Baconsmuggler
I agree, as stated before and I believe was first cited from westwall: that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

All such views are faith based.
At most, we can reach agreement on what we believe is true and consistent, effective or beneficial, regardless of other things we don't agree on.

As for morals and manmade laws: yes and no.

Even without the manmade expressions and codified agreements, laws, contracts and rituals and institutions based on them, there still exist Natural Laws of human nature and relations that govern us and our individual and social psychology. We are all connected to our mothers and fathers and carry behaviors from our past; with or without manmade systems that attempt to define these patterns and processes.

As for freedom or free will and free choice: there is internal intellectual freedom and there is external physical freedom. Man's laws attempt to define and control these. But by human nature that desires freedom to make and agree to decisions by our choice and consent, we eventually rebel against false laws or conditions inconsistent with natural freedom.

Our consciences are designed to seek what brings us peace security satisfaction and freedom from stress and to avoid what causes us fear stress worry and other negative reactions and consequences.

We didn't invent those laws.

It isn't because of man's laws we don't have free will to turn into birds and fly.
We are restrained and governed by pre existing laws of nature.

The Atheist or the Theist ways of expressing existing laws and truths are just two different ways of expressing laws we didn't make up, but merely discover and attempt to express in ordee to communicate and understand those universal laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

I can’t speculate on whether or not some future civilization decides that Casey at the Bat is a literal rendering of a supernatural event.

That's just it. You could if you studied the history, culture, language, and literature of those times. Instead, what has been happening the last few hundred years is that some denominations dismiss the need for this; that understanding modern English and living in modern Western culture doesn't make a difference in Bible perception--The Protestant Reformation taught, take the modern English literally...and that's enough. It's why some Protestant sects take the Bible literally, and why Catholics and Orthodox do not.

"Enough" is not all. Arithmetic is enough for most people. But it is not all the math there is. Same with the Bible.

No reason to think that some future civilization would mistake Casey, at the Bat or otherwise, being worshipped as a supernatural entity.

The attachment of Gods to the Bible is really no different than the ancient Greeks attaching their gods to unique cultural tales and fables: Clash of the Titans, Prometheus and the Theft of Fire, etc. with lots of Gods needing to be appeased.

Those fables are now looked upon as quaint tales with a “theme” perhaps but they’re not materially different than the successor Gods who flood the planet, require animal sacrifice and rule over humanity with anger and vengeance.

​

Dear Hollie
Yes and No.
The equivalent of these god figures are more like the level of believing in Adam and Eve as allegorical figures. Eve has been compared with Pandora, where these are not universal but auxilliary figures.

Moses giving the laws in writing has been compared with Buddha as an Eastern Moses giving the laws to gentiles, and to the Founding Fathers giving the Natural laws written for posterity through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Both Buddha and the Founders are highly mythologized and worshipped as spiritually divinely inspired.

The difference with God and Jesus is these represent Universal Truth and Justice on a central unique level for all Humanity.

For this to be true, whatever God or Jesus represent must fulfill and govern all other laws, tribes and cultures including all other religious expressions.

We can say that God created Buddha, Jesus, Moses and Mohammad and the Founding Fathers.

But nobody says Zeus created these.

Zeus does not represent the universal source of all things.

God can be seen as representing Life, the Universe, or all collective truth and knowledge and still include all other subsets or local gods, laws, or religious figures.

Instead of arguing if mythological figures exist or not, it makes more sense to discuss and agree what is MEANT by these symbols, and agree on Concepts and Principles that ARE Universal. Regardless what terms or symbols different people prefer to use.

If you believe Life comes from Nature, then we should focus on that as the source of universal laws in Life. Not waste time arguing over symbolism that you do not use!

 

[Meriweather]

The attachment of Gods to the Bible is really no different than the ancient Greeks attaching their gods to unique cultural tales and fables: Clash of the Titans, Prometheus and the Theft of Fire, etc. with lots of Gods needing to be appeased.

There are differences along with similarities. The differences are what tells the tale.

 

[Meriweather]

I just find it curious that believers will pick and choose those component parts of the Bible which don’t offend certain sensibilities.

Ever discuss the same event with eye witnesses? These witnesses are not "picking and choosing" but presenting their perspective of what happened. The stories of ancients do not offend. It is their perspective of what happened. So the question becomes, Are you offended when I do not see the Bible the same way you do? Because I expect people to see things differently than I.

I don't pick and choose. I have a great interest in all parts of the Bible and all perspectives, including yours. If you are seeing picking and choosing then I am wondering if you are looking at a mirror image? It is true that the perspective that fascinates me, and the ones I am most taken by, is the ancient perspective, the intent of the original authors as presented in the original language.

The Bible can be seen differently, taken differently by people of different faith and cultures. People who take it literally use a different lens than those who are looking at the theme, not for the definitions of each word.

 

[themirrorthief]

Christ died on the cross and rose the 3rd day and the ascension occurred 40 days after his resurrection. God gave us morning and night, four beautiful seasons to enjoy, and the fact that we will be with our fellow believers when we die thanks to Jesus for washing away our sins with his shed blood.

Four beautiful seasons, unless you live where there are no seasons.

And God didn't give anything, because he doesn't exist.

wrong...we are God

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

1. What PROOF do you have that there was NOTHING before this supposed "beginning"?
Scientists THEORIZE, they don't state theories as FACT. If they do, they are CHARLATANS!
The fact that this idiot is taking science OUT of the context of theory, shows he knows NOTHING about what he's spewing!!

2. Design originates from the science fact, that when a DNA combines with other DNA, it produces a pattern that has been used previously, like a living copy machine. As far as the universe is concerned, it was shaped from star explosions, planet and sun gravity, and numerous other scientific works. To think that everything is based on a "supernatural" entity is ludicrous and nothing more than a crutch for refusing to see reality, and spreading more lies.

3. Life. Wow, this guy is delusional to the point of needing to be put in a rubber room!
Life evolved from chemicals that settled on this rock from meteors and other fragments, starting a chain reaction of embryonic proportions.

4. Morals are a human concept. There is nothing extraterrestrial about them. Just as what is "right" and what is "wrong" are human concepts, created by humans to enslave other humans to the will of those in charge. Just like the fantasy story you call the Bible!

5. Atheism is NOT based on materialism, but Catholicism is!!! Free will is a another human concept that really can only exist if there are NO laws and no one in power to maintain a particular thought or agenda in human society. Since humans have created laws and agendas for society to live by, there can be NO free will.

6. Reasoning is only a side effect of language and society being used to create and help society, and its members, make decisions without beating each other over the head with sticks.

This guy is basically saying, that some phantom somewhere, hiding in plain sight, has his puppet strings attached to everything in the universe, all puppeting everything all at once.

This jerk is taking it upon himself to act like the universal reservoir of ultimate knowledge!
He's GOT to be a Democrat.......thinking he knows EVERYTHING there is to know about EVERYTHING!!!


Society DEMANDS that this lunatic be locked up for our safety!!

Well stated Toffeenut Baconsmuggler
I agree, as stated before and I believe was first cited from westwall: that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

All such views are faith based.
At most, we can reach agreement on what we believe is true and consistent, effective or beneficial, regardless of other things we don't agree on.

As for morals and manmade laws: yes and no.

Even without the manmade expressions and codified agreements, laws, contracts and rituals and institutions based on them, there still exist Natural Laws of human nature and relations that govern us and our individual and social psychology. We are all connected to our mothers and fathers and carry behaviors from our past; with or without manmade systems that attempt to define these patterns and processes.

As for freedom or free will and free choice: there is internal intellectual freedom and there is external physical freedom. Man's laws attempt to define and control these. But by human nature that desires freedom to make and agree to decisions by our choice and consent, we eventually rebel against false laws or conditions inconsistent with natural freedom.

Our consciences are designed to seek what brings us peace security satisfaction and freedom from stress and to avoid what causes us fear stress worry and other negative reactions and consequences.

We didn't invent those laws.

It isn't because of man's laws we don't have free will to turn into birds and fly.
We are restrained and governed by pre existing laws of nature.

The Atheist or the Theist ways of expressing existing laws and truths are just two different ways of expressing laws we didn't make up, but merely discover and attempt to express in ordee to communicate and understand those universal laws.

Faith is the hope that fantasies and fables are true, based upon that which cannot be proven by any means. For without faith, there is no manipulation. Without manipulation, there is no fear. And without fear, there is no power. And without power, there is no control over the stupid and gullible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Christ died on the cross and rose the 3rd day and the ascension occurred 40 days after his resurrection. God gave us morning and night, four beautiful seasons to enjoy, and the fact that we will be with our fellow believers when we die thanks to Jesus for washing away our sins with his shed blood.

Four beautiful seasons, unless you live where there are no seasons.

And God didn't give anything, because he doesn't exist.

wrong...we are God

Yeah, I always knew I was God, it makes sense now. Bow down and pray at my feet underling.

 

[LittleNipper]

Christ died on the cross and rose the 3rd day and the ascension occurred 40 days after his resurrection. God gave us morning and night, four beautiful seasons to enjoy, and the fact that we will be with our fellow believers when we die thanks to Jesus for washing away our sins with his shed blood.

Four beautiful seasons, unless you live where there are no seasons.

And God didn't give anything, because he doesn't exist.

wrong...we are God

Yeah, I always knew I was God, it makes sense now. Bow down and pray at my feet underling.

Get thee behind me Satan! Now for an honest understanding of FAITH. What Is Faith and Where Does It Come From?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Christ died on the cross and rose the 3rd day and the ascension occurred 40 days after his resurrection. God gave us morning and night, four beautiful seasons to enjoy, and the fact that we will be with our fellow believers when we die thanks to Jesus for washing away our sins with his shed blood.

Four beautiful seasons, unless you live where there are no seasons.

And God didn't give anything, because he doesn't exist.

wrong...we are God

Yeah, I always knew I was God, it makes sense now. Bow down and pray at my feet underling.

Get thee behind me Satan! Now for an honest understanding of FAITH. What Is Faith and Where Does It Come From?

Do you ever write anything that makes sense?