Proof there is no God

[creation]

Thee actual Truth of what God actually IS.

But what so you mean by "God"?

I have already explained this previously:

'God', in the visible sense, is the physical Universe, Itself.

'God', in the non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself. Which, contrary to popular belief, there is One, only.

What you told me was, obviously, NOT very specific at all, and could, actually, refer to absolutely ANY thing at all. If you do NOT want to explain specifically NOR in detail what you actually mean, then that is fine. I ALREADY KNOW, and UNDERSTAND WHY, 'you' are still so confused about things here.

I am not going to divide everything in the Universe of my experience into tow convenient lists for you; good and evil.

But why would you even think that this was being asked for?

I said; 'If you do not want to explain specifically nor in detail what you actually mean, then that is fine', with me.

By the way, besides explaining specifically or in detail you could have just provided a very short list of a few things, which you class as "good" and "evil". After all it was 'you', "sculptor1", who did make the claim that; "good and evil do not exist". You even wanted this to be made well and truly known by your use of the words, "Let me tell you," good and evil do not exist.

You are the confused one here.

In relation to 'what', exactly?

'you' are the self-confessed "educator" here, so 'educate' us.

[Terrapin Station]

ONCE AGAIN you use words as though they have ONE definition ONLY, and that you are the beholder of that ONE and ONLY definition.

There's a difference between "just one definition" and "any arbitrary crap."

[creation]

You need evidence that the universe we live in is more "desirable" than one in which in which life does not evolve beyond simple unicellular life forms?

You evidently have not been paying attention to my posts. I have repeatedly stated that, if there were a God, if it would create anything (which it would not need to do), it would directly create things suitable for heaven.

This has already happened.

Things have been directly created suitable for heaven. But a 'thing' being created suitable for something else does not imply nor mean that that 'thing' has to have done nor experience the something else, yet.

Patience is said to be a virtue and good things come to those who wait, patiently.

There is no need for a God to create or allow suffering.

Either 'you', "jack d ripper" are the ALL-Knower and so know this for a fact, or this is just an assumption of yours, which you believe is wholeheartedly true, so which one is it?

If it is neither, then what is correct?

Creating or allowing unnecessary suffering is evil.

'Suffering', itself, comes from a very relative perspective. Obviously, what 'you' class as "suffering" is not suffering at all to others.

There is no dispute about the fact that a precise balance of universal forces must manifest to give rise to stars, planets, and especially to life.

There may be no dispute about those things without a God, but with one, God could change things at will.

Are things static, or are things in constant motion, thus constant change, to you?

If it is neither, then what is correct?

But, if it is the latter, then what is causing/creating this change?

However, if it is the former, then what proof do you have for this?

Otherwise, it would not be omnipotent. You seem to imagine that God is powerless to do anything. You seem to imagine a god that is omni-impotent, the opposite of omnipotent.

...


Completely false, by the way, the appendix serves an important immune function and studies suggest that lacking one can depress your immune response.

...

Not that this example matters for the main argument, but people don't drop dead from having their appendixes removed.

Human beings also do not drop dead from having their arms or legs removed, among other things.

It is unnecessary, or everyone who had one removed would die or suffer from its loss, which is not the case and you know this to be true.

Having a 'depressed immune response' leads to "suffering", to some.

You also know that having an appendix kills people from time to time.

How quickly the actual topic of discussion gets forgotten, and/or changed, when analogies are used.

[creation]

...

When, and IF, you ever learn and understand exactly what thee omniscient and omnipotent Being actually IS, and how It actually works, then you will, also, instantly SEE and UNDERSTAND the absurdness and ridiculousness of what you are 'trying to' argue for, and are concluding here.

...

You keep claiming that and yet you never explain it. Why is that?

Before I start you would probably be yet aware that I also go by the name "evolution" here, in this forum. But now you do.

I have fully explained what 'God', Itself, actually IS, you have just yet to be made aware of this. Obviously you have not yet read all of my previous posts, and were not expected to have. So your claim that I have never explained 'it' is partly wrong. Also, as I have previously explained, I am not in this forum to have all of my views understood, nor even listened to, and heard. I am here, in this forum, to learn how to be better heard and understood, for a later date. I am also here, in this forum, to obtain and gather evidence to prove how the Mind and the brain actually work, for future research, and use.

How God actually works will be revealed soon enough.

Also, I find asking very specific questions can lead to obtaining the very specific answers, which one is seeking, much simpler and easier than asking questions with the words 'it' and 'that' in them, as you have written here. For example, if you wrote what the two 'that's are and the one 'it' is in your claim and question here, then you may find that you would have received a far more specific and concise response and answer.

Also, by the way people write just what they are open or not to, and how open or not they are, can be clearly seen, and just sometimes there is absolutely no use responding, nor clarifying and answering.

Why don't you tell us what this "omniscient and omnipotent Being actually IS" since you seem to be suggesting that you know about this?

Sure, now that I KNOW what 'it' is that you are Truly seeking an answer for. BUT, considering you believe, wholeheartedly, that God, an omniscient and omnipotent Being, does not actually exist, there really is no use telling you, is there?

Anyway, the word 'being', in relation to the word God, usually implies a non visible perspective. This Being is just thee Mind, Itself, of which, contrary to popular belief, there is only One.

Of course, if you tell us that this being lacks omnibenevolence, then it isn't the god being discussed in the opening post, and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, just like Zeus, who, by the way, I have not shown in this thread to not exist.

Your assumption that I would tell you that this Being lacks omnibenevolence is just plain ridiculous and absurd. I NEVER even thought this, let alone would I ever say that this Being does lack this nor would I tell anyone else this either.

If you believe in Zeus, the argument presented does not show that he does not exist, so you can rest easy.

The VERY REASON you can NOT understand me is because of these ridiculous AND absurd assumptions, which you continually make.

The very fact that you would think that I believe this is absurdness to the extreme, let alone putting this in writing for all to see is just pure foolishness at its highest.

How about you 'try' to just look at and just use the ACTUAL words that I write, to then 'try to' understand and make sense of what I am actually saying, AND MEANING?

What do you think if you give that a try, and let us just see what happens next?

The argument only applies to a being that has all three of these qualities: Omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. If it lacks one of those qualities, it is not the being under discussion.

Although this was CLEARLY written AND CLEARLY explained, by you, in your opening post, which I have NOT said absolutely anything to suggest that I did not understand this, you did not even notice when I have even picked up someone else for NOT following on with this definition, and which I supported you on, in this thread.

Please STOP assuming that I would ever be doing what you assumed others would when you wrote the opening post here.

Please START just reading only 'that' what I actually write here.

[creation]

In the quote below, an obvious typographical error has been corrected. The word that is altered is in italics.

But what do you mean by "God"?
...

It will be interesting to see if you get a coherent attempt at an answer to that question.

Why do you find this to be 'interesting'?

Is this because you believe, wholeheartedly, that it is NOT possible to "get a coherent attempt at an answer to that question", or because you believe that 'I' could not provide "a coherent attempt" at an answer to an obviously very relative and extremely simple and easy question to answer?

Or is there some other reason you find that this will be, so called, "interesting"?

[creation]

Have you ever considered that the, so called, "contradictory nonsense" is just due to the way that you and/or them mis/interpret and/or express those views?

Have you ever considered the possibility that it is contradictory nonsense?

Yes.

I used to believe, wholeheartedly, that it was contradictory nonsense.

That was; Until I uncovered what was actually being meant, and how when looked at from that perspective it began to ALL make PERFECT SENSE, which can be and will be backed up and supported scientifically, and through well reasoned, logical arguments.

[creation]

You wrote a statement, but put a question mark at the end of it. So, are you writing a statement, (based on an ASSUMPTION), or are you asking me a question, for clarification?

...

No wonder the conversation with you goes nowhere, when you do not understand that a question mark is used to ask a question.

But I DO UNDERSTAND that a question mark is used to ask a question. I also KNOW that a sentence, when written properly and correctly, can either be written as a statement, (which is either true, right, and/or correct or not, by the way), or written as a question.

A sentence can also, when written improperly and incorrectly, is one when written as a statement, but with a question mark at the end. Your sentences, which I put into question, were written improperly and incorrectly. I suggest that if you want me to answer a question, then just write a sentence in proper and correct question form.

I, quite frequently, do NOT answer statements with question marks at the end.

By the way, your ASSUMPTION was WRONG again.

I see now why you don't answer questions that are asked of you.

No you DID NOT. This is because YOUR ASSUMPTIONS were WRONG.

But, hopefully, you now better SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW WHY I do NOT answer your statements, with question marks.

This is a philosophy forum so I suggest writing properly and correctly, as well as saying only what you mean, and only asking for only 'that', which you specifically seek.

By the way, what you specifically seek can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD in the way you write. This is because the way you write comes directly from your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

[creation]

In the quote below, an obvious typographical error has been corrected. The word that is altered is in italics.



It will be interesting to see if you get a coherent attempt at an answer to that question.

It's not the first time I've asked.
LOL

And, if you have MISSED my logically reasoned and coherent answers, to me, previously, then so be it. That is NOT my fault. If, however, you have just FORGOTTEN my logically reasoned and coherent answers, to me, previously, then that is perfectly understandable.

[creation]

evolution,

I agree that this 'helping one's self and/or doing and accomplishing things for, and by, one's self' is unrivaled.

It is isn't it. Recently I've been in a bit of employment law difficulty. I can't afford a solicitor, so after doing some research and reading, I formulated a complaint of my own making, which did not achieve everything that I wanted to, but it got me out of the situation without huge damage to my reputation, which was my opponents goal I believe. I've been using these forums for a good few years now, and I can tell you that being articulate is a very powerful tool, don't underestimate what you have in that sense.

Being articulate is about my own really goal here.

Once 'I' can be heard, and fully understood, for and from my views, (or just plain old recognized and accepted for who 'I' Truly am, then the rest just falls into place, naturally, and perfectly.

As you say, the power of being 'articulate', being fully heard and fully understood is extremely powerful, especially when one has come to KNOW thy Self.

On topic, as much I would welcome 'divine help' in my life, the satisfaction of helping oneself in my view outweighs it.

When 'Who 'I' am' is fully understood, then what 'divine help' actually is and means, and what 'helping One's self' actually is and means, will be fully understood as well. There is no difference between the two, by the way.

Because anything we learn can only strengthen us and cause us to develop further. I don't need God for anything, I just need too feed my brain with information/knowledge, and watch it go.

One would have to CLEARLY KNOW what 'God' is to be able to say and confirm if they 'need' God for anything or not.

Do 'you' CLEARLY KNOW what 'God' IS, yet, or even CLEARLY KNOW the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

If yes, then great. But I would like to further clarify WHY you would say such a thing.

But if no, then HOW do 'you' KNOW that 'you' do NOT 'need' God for ANY thing?

I also had a problem with heartburn, did a bit of research, changed my diet, and bang,100% better.

Life, and living, Truly IS very simple and easy.

Just some human beings think it is hard, and complex.

If God had healed me, I would be none the wiser.

I have absolutely NO idea who nor what you are referring to when you say things like this. If 'who' or 'what', exactly, had healed you? What is this 'God' thing, which you are referring to here?

Therefore, how do we know that it isn't God's will that we go through these things?

What EVERY one "goes through" is EXACTLY a part of this, so called, 'God's will'.

Human beings, individually and collectively, as they grow and mature, just have to uncover and learn what 'God' actually IS, and how God actually works.

He/She may not be as the texts report, they could be like "a divine gardener", who just provides the nutrients for us to grow. But unlike flowers, how we grow totally is up to us.

And what 'you', human beings, learn, or do not learn, is totally up to 'you' also.

My apologies for not responding to other posts, I'll try to get to them when I can.

[creation]

Jack D Ripper: "There may be no dispute about those things without a God, but with one, God could change things at will. Otherwise, it would not be omnipotent."

As I suggested earlier, your definition of "omnipotent" is nonsensical, it implies magical powers completely divorced from reality as we know it. If we know that certain conditions are necessary to form a universe, generate life, etc., it's absurd to propose that a magical being could simply ignore those physical laws and manifest things willy-nilly out of thin air (or thick neutrons). I take omnipotent to mean the ability to do anything physically possible, not to do any impossible thing. There is no need to disprove the existence of the God you've sketched because it is an absurdity.

We may first want to consider if a "being" could be omni-anything (omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) at all, since by definition a being is a discrete derivative entity. It could be a primal power, such as consciousness - but of course most people could not take solace in such a diety.

"I also had a problem with heartburn, did a bit of research, changed my diet, and bang, 100% better."

I thought you were going to say, "So I avoided all philosophy forum threads re: God, and bang, 100% better!" - that will work too.

"Therefore, how do we know that it isn't God's will that we go through these things?"

Yes, that is supposedly the point of evolution - becoming. Or as Alan Watts put it, the Lord's first commandment is, "Thou shalt not be boring!"

Yes, 'evolution' can mean becoming, or just plain old coming into Being.

Coming-to-be 'who or what' 'we' Truly are is what we all have to wait for, and see.

That is; Who and what the human be-ing, itself, is evolving into be-coming-ing, is soon to be fully recognized, and seen/understood.

Evolution, itself, does not stop with the human being, which is in continual change and transformation. The human being obviously evolved from other things and what the human being will evolve into, (if they do not wipe themselves out first), will soon be seen. But in the meantime 'we just have to wait, and see', as they say.

Life, Itself, is evolving into KNOWING, and thus be-coming, Its True Self, through discovery and learning. Human beings do not stop learning and discovering.

Know Thy Self is an instinctual desire, and is an internal seeking, which will not just stop.

This is because the very deepest 'essence', of Life, Itself, works through the physical Universe, which is evolving, and transforming Itself. Continually creating intelligence itself, through evolving species until one has evolved, which is able to work our what 'Life', Itself, and is all about. Then the rest just falls into place, naturally, and perfectly.

[creation]

ONCE AGAIN you use words as though they have ONE definition ONLY, and that you are the beholder of that ONE and ONLY definition.

There's a difference between "just one definition" and "any arbitrary crap."

OBVIOUSLY. But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I just said, and meant.

You have shown continuously that you actually BELIEVE that when you use a word, then the definition, which you are thinking, is the one and only proper and correct definition for that word.

You have also continuously shown that you expect others to KNOW what that definition is, which is being thought of, within that head.

For example, you wrote: " You 'never' talk about 'philosophy' ", (besides the obvious falseness in your claim by using the 'never' word), I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue at all what you mean by the 'philosophy' word here.

What the word 'philosophy' means, to me, there NEVER could be an example of when I could 'ever' talk about 'philosophy', itself. Besides when just pointing out what that word means, to me, which I have previously already done.

[Fanman]

creation,

One would have to CLEARLY KNOW what 'God' is to be able to say and confirm if they 'need' God for anything or not.

Do 'you' CLEARLY KNOW what 'God' IS, yet, or even CLEARLY KNOW the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

If yes, then great. But I would like to further clarify WHY you would say such a thing.

But if no, then HOW do 'you' KNOW that 'you' do NOT 'need' God for ANY thing?

True, and since I don’t, I cannot confirm whether I need him/her or not. However, based upon what I do know, the reason that I say that I don’t need God, is ironically due to what I don’t know.

No, I don’t know what God is. I know myself to the degree that I am aware of the kind of person that I am. I know what I like and what I don’t like, and I know what I can and cannot do. I do not know my full potential, I don’t think that anyone does, so in answer to the question “who am I?” I would say, I don’t fully know, but I have an idea.

[Sculptor1]

But what so you mean by "God"?

I have already explained this previously:

'God', in the visible sense, is the physical Universe, Itself.

But there is already a good word for that: Universe. I know the universe exists.

'God', in the non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself. Which, contrary to popular belief, there is One, only.

If there is only one mind then why don't you agree with what I say?

I am not going to divide everything in the Universe of my experience into two convenient lists for you; good and evil.

But why would you even think that this was being asked for?

Because that is EXACTLY what you asked for.

I said; 'If you do not want to explain specifically nor in detail what you actually mean, then that is fine', with me.

I've told you twice already.

By the way, besides explaining specifically or in detail you could have just provided a very short list of a few things, which you class as "good" and "evil". After all it was 'you', "sculptor1", who did make the claim that; "good and evil do not exist". You even wanted this to be made well and truly known by your use of the words, "Let me tell you," good and evil do not exist.

Here's a good example.
**** is evil. but it is good for plants.
poisonous alkaloids are evil to eat; but they also are good for plants since they stop the plants being eaten.
I could go on all day.
Good is that which pleases man; evil is that which pleases him not.

You are the confused one here.

In relation to 'what', exactly?

QED

'you' are the self-confessed "educator" here, so 'educate' us.

You'll have to start reading properly first.

[Sculptor1]

ONCE AGAIN you use words as though they have ONE definition ONLY, and that you are the beholder of that ONE and ONLY definition.

There's a difference between "just one definition" and "any arbitrary crap."

[Terrapin Station]

Quoting the bit that wasn't just useless $hitposting per what I just described as your norm.