The silence of God

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This was after I pointed out that, if that were so, then a omniscient creator would know what would convince us that it exists.

Prove that you do not know God exists.

Like all theists/deists, you make the same mistake: assuming that your deity exists.

The fact is that the "evidence" religions hold to be absolute is chimaera because it's self-referencing.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

As I've pointed out in numerous other threads, theists, and deists, have the burden of proof - they (including you) have to show four things:

1) Any supernatural creator-entity is possible - where said entity can be singular or a group;
2) Having proven 1), that said supernatural creator-entity is the one/group that you claim exists;
3) Having proven 1) and 2) above, that the supernatural creator-entity in which you believe had anything to do with the natural universe;
4) Having proven 1), 2), and 3) above, that the supernatural creator-entity in which you believe had anything to do with the religious text(s) associated with said supernatural creator-entity.

This is your burden of proof - it's not for me or anyone else to prove that a creator-entity doesn't exist nor that I do not know a creator-entity doesn't exist.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Mars, you're such a meanie for honestly engaging in what LEROY has wibbled about. He's supposed to be able to contradict himself without you constantly nagging away with all this honesty bullshit, this reason bollocks, this whole making sense shit. Fuck that!

As LEROY has said, he can't be restrained by such pathetic limitations. He is LEROY, the gospel, the word, the all knowing! If LEROY forms a barely coherent or perfectly illegible sentence then ours is not to criticize, but merely to wonder at the revolutionary syntax and the 'mind' which allegedly underlies it.

What we all need to understand Mars is that the act of stringing words together into sentences inherently lends the resulting sentence's significance factual status just so long as it's uttered by LEROY, or by people LEROY agrees with. Bringing evidence and logic that disagrees with anything LEROY says means it's de facto wrong, and LEROY can hardly be expected to bother to read all that stuff he already knows is wrong.

Truth? Honesty? Basic human etiquette? Pfff, so atheistamalistic!

How hard can that be to process? :mrgreen:

 

[leroy]

Remember when Leroy asserted that god could predict human reactions because of the variables that influence them?

Yes God can do it, and probably even humans from the future with super computers would also be capable of doing it.


My point is that you cant predict human reactions. .............for example you can not prove that if God would have knocked doors 100 years ago, there would be more followers today.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another slapped dick on desk of discourse retort.

Yes, I have stated internally contradictory things, but that's because of this complete non-sequitur.

Do I need to repeat it? I can repeat it every time you show it wrong, because repetition will make it right. So long as I keep ignoring all your replies, there's a thin chance someone won't notice how you've demolished the implicit assumptions in every iteration of this repetition. And even if they don't, well, I still replied, so I WINNNZZZZZ

If anyone ever wondered whether the pigeon-chess metaphor was still applicable...

 

[MarsCydonia]

You cant prove that by doing something different humans would willingly react in accordance with Gods goals

the reason why this statement is true is because

1 you don't know what Gods goals would be (if he exists)

2 you cant know how humans would react, because human reaction is ether chaotic or nondeterministic

God can do it, and probably even humans from the future with super computers would also be capable of doing it.

So the statement isn't true because it, that humans can react in certain ways depending on certain circonstences, is in fact provable. We just need a computer from the future to predict chaotic and nonderterministic... (and despite what Leroy wishes, we can do it today too).

Of course, you have to wonder what Leroy is doing arguing with atheists with his baseless assertions. Since belief in god is not based on evidence but is in fact chaotic, we could believe out of the random chaos, with or without Leroy's constant running away from addressing:
1. The correct form of the argument.
2. How his objections to his flawed form of the argument (where he pretended to know god's goals) were shown to be invalid.
3. How his flawed form of the argument and or his now reversal of "not knowing god goals' brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

15 pages of comments and we'll never had and probably never will have a response from Leroy, "final" or otherwise, that addresses this.

 

[Visaki]

Prove that you do not know God exists.

Yes. Atheists seem to be and have always been an insignificant number of the worlds population. The fact that people believe in God is evident in force and can be proven as a major motivational factor, throughout history. The same cannot be said for atheism. I see no reason why I should not consider the possibility that you and all other atheists are liars.

You went full Sye Ten, didn't you? :facepalm:

I was bored.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

leroy[/url]"]my final response to you and to everybody is>

Oh well...

:docpalm:

You never gave a justification for why you think the goal you were trying (and failing) to defend was a deity's goal. Again, one would think that in order to do this, one needs to demonstrate a deity; but this was your burden that you kept refusing to bare. Beyond that, this thread was about the silence of a deity, which you never address. Instead, you just constructed your asinine goal argument to sidestep the point of your own thread. How sad can one get?

however you don't disagree with this statement do you?

You cant prove that by doing something different humans would willingly react in accordance with Gods goals

I obviously disagree. Since you never demonstrated a deity has a goal, how could I agree with anything based off that? Care to justify your premise now?

the reason why this statement is true is because

1 you don't know what Gods goals would be (if he exists)

2 you cant know how humans would react, because human reaction is ether chaotic or nondeterministic

Yep. All you have is a counterfactual. Now care to justify your premise or are you going to insist, again, that because you can string a sentence together, you have an argument?

Remember when Leroy asserted that god could predict human reactions because of the variables that influence them?

Yes God can do it, and probably even humans from the future with super computers would also be capable of doing it.

Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates that he believes in a deterministic universe.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Since "GOD can do it", this shows that god KNOWS what would convince a soul he's supposed to have created to believe in him.

As I've pointed out a few times but to which I have not received a coherent reply.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Since "GOD can do it", this shows that god KNOWS what would convince a soul he's supposed to have created to believe in him.

As I've pointed out a few times but to which I have not received a coherent reply.

Kindest regards,

James

yes and there are atleast 4 possibilities

1 God knows that nothing would convince you

2 God will do something and convince you at some point in your life

3 If God does X and X would convince you, it could be that by doing X god would loose other potencial followers, he would gain you but he would also loose others.

4 God doesn't exist


unless you disprove 1,2,3 you shouldn't automatically conclude 4

 

[leroy]

I obviously disagree. Since you never demonstrated a deity has a goal, how could I agree with anything based off that? Care to justify your premise now?

if God doesn't have a Goal then why would he do something different like knocking doors ?

Yep. All you have is a counterfactual

yes the original argument presented by Grumpy was based on counterfactuals and I am answering with other counterfactuals. you have a personal issue with counterfactuals but that is only your own personal issue.

. Now care to justify your premise or are you going to insist, again, that because you can string a sentence together, you have an argument?

the burden proof is yours, you (well grumpy) are the one who is presenting the argument you are the one who has to prove that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would react according to Gods desires or goals.


you are the one who is making a positive argument, you are the one who is claiming that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would do whatever God intends us to do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

yes and there are atleast 4 possibilities

1 God knows that nothing would convince you

And in the first you immediately contradict God's alleged ontology.

It's amazing. You would literally have been a target for the Christian Inquisition had you uttered this just a few years ago.

Of course God can convince us according to the meat of your beliefs, because God's power has no limitations.

I don't need to go on - this shows that your answers are irrational, just words tossed out to pretend you've retorted, but I will go on for the lulz!

2 God will do something and convince you at some point in your life

a) convenient
b) contradicts 1

:lol:

3 If God does X and X would convince you, it could be that by doing X god would loose other potencial followers, he would gain you but he would also loose others.

Again, contradicts the dogmatic ontology of Yahweh. God is omniscient and omnipotent, so God would find a way to do X without resulting in losing another potential follower.

And HE :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Private joke, but I will explain if you want. And make sure you want first, because it's a doozy!

4 God doesn't exist

The only one that isn't internally contradictory.

Well done, LEROY - the only two active theists on this board have both provided arguments that result in a necessary conclusion of God's non-existence in the space of just 24 hours.

Do you not think that perhaps someone else might be better suited to arguing for Christianity with the heathen?

Remember that Aquinas quote I shared with you?

unless you disprove 1,2,3 you shouldn't automatically conclude 4

They are disproven formally by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Bet you won't accept it though because none of your arguments are real. You won't accept the conclusion of any logical statement that results in a conclusion you don't ideologically accept.

That's why you doing logic is such comedy, LEROY. Because no one is permitted to pretend to use logic just when it's convenient, then ignore it when it's not. That, dear sir, is illogical, and inherently self-defeating.

But you gave the rest of us a laugh, anyway!

 

[Sparhafoc]

if God doesn't have a Goal then why would he do something different like knocking doors ?

LEROY, have you even read the Bible?

Yep. All you have is a counterfactual

yes the original argument presented by Grumpy was based on counterfactuals and I am answering with other counterfactuals. you have a personal issue with counterfactuals but that is only your own personal issue.

the burden proof is yours, you (well grumpy) are the one who is presenting the argument you are the one who has to prove that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would react according to Gods desires or goals.

you are the one who is making a positive argument, you are the one who is claiming that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would do whatever God intends us to do.

This is specious bullshit, and not one person with the intelligence of an 8 year old or over would be confused by this.

Are you confused by it? I don't think so, I think you just write words because the act of writing words means you've retorted.

Any which way, the Christian scripture expressly states many times that God wants a relationship with us, so if LEROY wants to pretend otherwise then forget the heathens, he's going to have a horde of Christians to deal with!

Counterfactuals, contradictions, logic - meh, just words, right LEROY?

As for burden of proof - it doesn't become someone else's just because you write it in caps, nor do you get to write it in caps when you have already had it answered. I provided all the 'proof' you need, and instructed you several times to take an elementary course in epistemology.

Proof - you keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Requoted several times already, here's the 'proof', meaning, when numptyisms are stripped away, a logical argument:

Easy.

I want a relationship with my neighbours.

I can do one of two things.

1) Hide, erase all evidence of my existence, get a bunch of undereducated, barely literate loons to tell everyone that they know I exist and that they can speak to me and hear my voice and know I love all my neighbours and want them to believe in me before I will present myself to them, then spend gigantic amounts of my material wealth and individual energy contriving and planting empirical evidence which very strongly suggests that I don't exist, and that all the stories my barely literate loons tell are categorically and unequivocally bollocks.

or

2) Go and knock on the door and introduce myself. Perhaps take a bunch of flowers or a cake?


Consider it proved man. Also, learn what proof is.

There is no way to deny this that is either a) honest or b) logical

It's already PROVEN, according to your nebulous usage of the word, and you are therefore simply repeating arguments that have already been demolished.

Incidentally, the 8 year old intelligence level thing is back again here: your argument is that when attempting to do X, not doing X might be better than doing X. It is, of course, silly in the first instance. It was sillier in the second, third, fourth and however many times you've repeated yourself now, and no final reply is really there if you are simply going to repeat ad nauseum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another instance, LEROY.

If God knocked on my door, I would certainly no longer deny 'his' existence.

Therefore 'he' would automatically gain the opportunity for a follower that 'he' would otherwise not have had.

We don't need to go further than that.

One black swan defeats any argument that all swans are white.

Watch logic get pelvically thrusted off the table again now it's not working for you.

 

[leroy]

Another instance, LEROY.

If God knocked on my door, I would certainly no longer deny 'his' existence.

Therefore 'he' would automatically gain the opportunity for a follower that 'he' would otherwise not have had.

We don't need to go further than that.

One black swan defeats any argument that all swans are white.

Watch logic get pelvically thrusted off the table again now it's not working for you.

you are assuming that you have knowledge that you don't have.


you don't know what Gods goals are

you don't know how would you react if God knocks your door

and you don't know how the rest of the world would react if God knocks your door



given my knowledge about you and your behavior it is almost certainly true that if God knocks your door you will find an excuse and reject him, you will hate God even more and you will work even harder to promote your atheism in forums.


Perhaps God doesn't what that, this is why God is not interested in knocking your door.


Obviously I can not prove that you will react that way, but since you are speculating without evidence, on how people would react, I thought I can also speculate without evidence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

you are assuming that you have knowledge that you don't have.

Nope, this is another instance of your complete fucking delusion bullshit.

Logical arguments don't need to be based on 'knowledge', LEROY, they need to be logical, to follow from the postulates. I've provided examples of that in this very thread, which you have ignored, as you always do whenever you got your little botty whacked out of the ballpark.

Of course, I don't accept your childish postulate, but I've already explained all this to you and you've ignored it as you always do when showed a clueless muppet. You can't comprehend, not my issue - it just shows why you believe in fairy tales, because that's all the sum of your intellect can comprehend.

you don't know what Gods goals are

As I said, you clearly haven't read the Bible.

you don't know how would you react if God knocks your door

I also don't know the price of fish. Is it Wednesday? Oohhh look over there, it's a... um... err... squirrel um with an uzi!

Irrelevant.

You're doing the 'throw words at it' again, aren't you. Sorry LEROY, there are no other thick cunts here to confuse except yourself.

and you don't know how the rest of the world would react if God knocks your door

Irrelevant.

Not one of your replies has the slightest impact or relation to the argument I have written showing that your claim is idiotic nonsense tossed out in desperation as you throw words at a page to fend off the heathens spanking you once again.

You volunteer to be spanked both by coming here with stupid ideas, then acting like a nasty little cunt. Spanking's all you are ever gonna get, LEROY!

ygiven my knowledge about you and your behavior it is almost certainly true that if God knocks your door you will find an excuse and reject him, you will hate God even more and you will work even harder to promote your atheism in forums.

Given your knowledge about me, I could be shagging your wife and you'd be none the wiser.

For instance, I've actually told you to your face 10 times at least that I am not an atheist. This is how well you 'know' me, because your 'knowledge' is just the petty little vacuous prejudice of a petty little vacuous cunt.

yPerhaps God doesn't what that, this is why God is not interested in knocking your door.

LEROY pretending to be arguing for Christianity, but clearly hasn't read the Bible.

I wish there were some real Christians here because it would be fun to watch them spank your body back to childhood where it can reconvene with your brain.

yObviously I can not prove that you will react that way, but since you are speculating without evidence, on how people would react, I thought I can also speculate without evidence.

Obvious, nothing. You are just stringing words together that have no validity to anything, but you think in your abject idiocy that the simple act of writing words means you are retorting.

You are a figure of fun, LEROY - not remotely credible as a thinker because you don't think, just knee-jerk.

Oh and lest I forget: you're also a lying cunt.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ahh fuck it - time for the nail in the jelly!

I was going to keep it... I wanted to give LEROY more rope, but he's only got a piece of fluff and can't seem to get any further purchase on all these complex issues like logic, reason, literacy, reading comprehension, or writing substantive responses to the words other people wrote. You know, stuff you need to engage with adults in any form of discussion.

But I am going to be busy and won't have the pleasure of watching him squirm, so I want to enjoy it now. Go on laddie, wriggle, wriggle, wriggle... let's watch you worm your wormy way out of this pile of worm dropping you've pooped on yourself:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

DOH LEROY UHHHH HHURR HURRR HURRHURHRUr you done sed bad fings opposite what Jeebus sed!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Creationists can't even do their own religion right!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ahh, just deserts. I love cosmic irony.

 

[leroy]

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

In this forum we are talking about knocking the door in the literal sense of the word, literally come to your house knock the door and introduce himself.


the bible is not being literal in that text, sure Jesus is currently knocking your door (in your hart) if you open your door (hart) he will make his existence evident.


what you have to prove is that it would be better (according to Gods goal) to knock doors in the literal sense rather than knocking in harts

 

[Sparhafoc]

What the Bible says about God, God's motivations, goals, and desires:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

What LEROY says about God, God's motivations, goals, and desires:

if God doesn't have a Goal then why would he do something different like knocking doors ?

1 you don't know what Gods goals would be (if he exists)

As I told you before multiple times..........

given that you don't know what Gods goal is,

"You don't know what God goal is, therefore you don't know that making his existence more obvious would be convenient for his goals"

So the implication, according to LEROY's repeated ad nauseum assertion is that you cannot know what God's goals are, even if the Bible tells you what God's goals are, thereby undermining absolutely everything essential to Christianity.

I've seen some self-defeating arguments in my time, but the beautiful irony of the belligerent arrogance and hubristic confidence LEROY has employed throughout this thread (and in every fucking topic he deigns to commnet on) when his OWN holy scripture contradict him is just poetry in fucking motion!

Well, there goes Christianity again!

Athemaliscamensuifhjteits, and evoljfgjnjnireopsmkutionamilists don't even need to exist for arguments to end up debunking gods - the believers will do it all by themselves if you just give them room to type 8 words! :lol:

Do you hubris LEROY, oh yes, you do all the hubris.

Proverbs 11:2


thenexttodie - do you find it embarrassing to be ideologically associated with such a cretin? Regardless of what others here might think, I don't put you anywhere near the same class as this drooling cretin.

 

[MarsCydonia]

yes and there are atleast 4 possibilities

1 God knows that nothing would convince you

2 God will do something and convince you at some point in your life

3 If God does X and X would convince you, it could be that by doing X god would loose other potencial followers, he would gain you but he would also loose others.

4 God doesn't exist

unless you disprove 1,2,3 you shouldn't automatically conclude 4

Leroy is still struggling to validate his objection to his flawed version of the argument. That's because his method consists of:
A. Pick the conclusion you want to be true.
B. Try to validate the conclusion without posting something meaningless or contradictory
C. When pointed that the reasoning does not in fact valide the conclusion, Run!
D. Repost B.

So, let's make Leroy go to step C. again:
1. As pointed out for Leroy to run from, that god created mankind, or at least part of mankind, without the possibility of having it "follow him" (as Leroy imagine's god goals to be) brings glaring issues from a christian standpoint.

2. As not yet pointed out to Leroy for him to run from, that god created for it to "follow him" (as Leroy imagine's god goals to be) but decides to play hide-and-seek until some point of their life is:
a. Would require evidence that Leroy will not provide
b. Contradicts reality as we know of people dying holding other faiths or as atheists

3. As pointed out for Leroy to run from, if god hides from people because he only wants certain followers (as Leroy imagine's god goals to be), that would:
a. Contradict reality as we know why people permanently cease to "follow god": Deconversion happens most often if not always because of the lack of evidence. Others who are not christians, are open to the existence of gods, they're simply indoctrinated into a different god belief.
a1. With god showing up to ask to be followed, former christians who deconverted because of the lack of evidence would cease.
a2. Those of other religions would either follow god or not but a single one converting to christianity would mean an increase.
b. Leroy will not provide evidence or even a valid reason why people would deconvert in a greater number than would convert as explained in a1 and a2.
c Still raises the sames issues as 1.

4. God doesn't exist.

Since Leroy will not back-up that 2. and 3. are actual possibilities and not complete wishful thinking on his end. We're really left with 2 possibilities:
1. God knows that nothing would convince you
4. God doesn't exist

Because Leroy needs to avoid 4. at all costs, he's only left with 1. And 1. would indeed be a valid objection to both his flawed version of the argument. and the valid version of the argument.

But 1. also come with glaring issues for a christian standpoint, issues Leroy has ran from addressing. If 1. is to be a valid objection, then the god we're discussing can be all-powerful but he cannot be good and just.

So Leroy will continue to run...