@ocelot,
Amen!

I agree with you.

A miracle about mocking God, (i don't know if someone said this before, or that christians believe in it(no offense))

a very long time ago in the time of pharos, the prophet Moses (may gods peace and prayers fall on him) was sent to a pharoh who mocked God and said that he was God, after a number of miracles (the pharoh didnt believe) the Prophet and the Jewish tribe were running away and the pharoh and his soldiers were going after them but the greatest miracle happened , the prophet hit the sea wth his cane and the sea got split for them to pass, but when the pharoh was going after them the sea closed and he drowned,

so praise God

Islam:

A miracle about mocking God, (i don't know if someone said this before, or that christians believe in it(no offense))

a very long time ago in the time of pharos, the prophet Moses (may gods peace and prayers fall on him) was sent to a pharoh who mocked God and said that he was God, after a number of miracles (the pharoh didnt believe) the Prophet and the Jewish tribe were running away and the pharoh and his soldiers were going after them but the greatest miracle happened , the prophet hit the sea wth his cane and the sea got split for them to pass, but when the pharoh was going after them the sea closed and he drowned,

so praise God

Right, and where is the archaeological evidence of Moses' and the Jewish people's exodus? God must have done quite some cleaning up afterwards, to leave no evidence at all behind of this magnificent feat.

, as if all you have believed in your life up till now have been proven and  tested.

donnie:

, as if all you have believed in your life up till now have been proven and tested.

There might be things I would believe in, even if they were not proven yet, but i'm certainly not going to believe in something that is disproven

There you go again nferyn. Who has disproven what - that God does not exist?

The specific God of the Abrahamic religions as portrayed in their Holy books has been disproven. God cannot be, at the same time, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. This is logically impossible.

As far as logic goes, you may have a point - and even so, it does not make any sense. Why? Logic should not be the ultimate yardstick of assessment in any field of experience: not even in science (as it deals with scientific facts and rejects what it does not understand [logic], and cannot measure); not even in aesthetics and the arts (the sense of beauty and apprecaition goes beyond logic). Logic could be applied in Mathematics and Philosophy; but even these tools are insufficient to fully explain the complexities of life and supernatural phehomena.

"The specific God of the Abrahamic religions as portrayed in their Holy books has been disproven."

How has He been disproven - "disproven" in the sense that He does not exist, or that He exists but not as portrayed in their Holy books? If He does not exist, then we are dealing with an atheistic challenge; however, if He exists but not as portrayed in their Holy books, it would make sense to give us an idea of how He exists, and tell us if you believe in your own portrayal of Him. Logic is a weak tool for measuring experience; and only people who hope that God does not exist will want to keep chanting that slogan.

Just want to make a few contributions here,

In statistics, you do not prove that a theory is right, you can only prove it is not wrong.

In science, logic is not our burden of proof but evidence.

In criminal law, the jury do not prove anyone guilty they however acquit because they do not have enough proof to convict

Are we saying that we have enough proof to say there is no God or the Abrahamic God does not exist, or we don't have enough proof to show that he exists?Think about that nferyn, and let your logic guide you.

Do we say the earth is flat because we do not have enough evidence to show it is round or we cannot say the earth is round because we do not have enough evidence to show it is.

They may look the same but they are not, that is what logic is and if you are truly a student of logic then you are breaking a basic principle in logic by saying God's properties are false and hence no God, it is called the principle of double negatives.

I cannot prove this drug works, but i can disprove that it does not work.

logic, science, statistics; that is all they agree on. when it comes to the omnipotence of God why does this differ? because atheism is not logic but a force on its own, and what does it aim to achieve? it hides on the pretext of logic to disprove the existence of another force, which infact is not a logical act in itself.

Atheism in itself is a force potraying a principle in the heart of men, what they disprove is what they simply cannot prove yet they have no basis to disprove it.

nferyn are you following me?

nferyn:

The specific God of the Abrahamic religions as portrayed in their Holy books has been disproven. God cannot be, at the same time, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. This is logically impossible.

In view of logic above, which if you deny then you do not know what logic is then, how have you disproved that:

1) The specific Abrahamic God has been disproved; or are you saying that you do not have enough evidence to prove it? but does that disprove it? no! does that prove it? No also! i cannot prove that God exists, i cannot even prove that he does not exist but i can disprove that he does not exist, that is what logic is if you are confused about the 2 (or 3) then you do not know logic, you only seem to know it.

remember, logic, statiscal power is all about double negatives, not double positives.:

if i cant prove that a drug works but i can disprove that it does not work then id still use the drug

if i cant prove that there is God or no God, but i can disprove that there is no God then id still believe in him and worship him.

2) How is his qualities not so, or you meant to say you don't have enough to accept it? the later in each question is logic, that is statistical power.

nferyn, which do you chose?

Right, and where is the archaeological evidence of Moses' and the Jewish people's exodus? God must have done quite some cleaning up afterwards, to leave no evidence at all behind of this magnificent feat.

nferyn, the evidence is that all his soldiers stayed under the sea but the pharoah got risen and he also got preserved although he didnt get mumified!

funny

nicetohave:

Just want to make a few contributions here,

In statistics, you do not prove that a theory is right, you can only prove it is not wrong.

In science, logic is not our burden of proof but evidence.

In criminal law, the jury do not prove anyone guilty they however acquit because they do not have enough proof to convict

Are we saying that we have enough proof to say there is no God or the Abrahamic God does not exist, or we don't have enough proof to show that he exists?Think about that nferyn, and let your logic guide you.

Do we say the earth is flat because we do not have enough evidence to show it is round or we cannot say the earth is round because we do not have enough evidence to show it is.

They may look the same but they are not, that is what logic is and if you are truly a student of logic then you are breaking a basic principle in logic by saying God's properties are false and hence no God, it is called the principle of double negatives.

I cannot prove this drug works, but i can disprove that it does not work.

logic, science, statistics; that is all they agree on. when it comes to the omnipotence of God why does this differ? because atheism is not logic but a force on its own, and what does it aim to achieve? it hides on the pretext of logic to disprove the existence of another force, which infact is not a logical act in itself.

Atheism in itself is a force potraying a principle in the heart of men, what they disprove is what they simply cannot prove yet they have no basis to disprove it.

nferyn are you following me?

In view of logic above, which if you deny then you do not know what logic is then, how have you disproved that:

1) The specific Abrahamic God has been disproved; or are you saying that you do not have enough evidence to prove it? but does that disprove it? no! does that prove it? No also! i cannot prove that God exists, i cannot even prove that he does not exist but i can disprove that he does not exist, that is what logic is if you are confused about the 2 (or 3) then you do not know logic, you only seem to know it.

remember, logic, statiscal power is all about double negatives, not double positives.:

if i can't prove that a drug works but i can disprove that it does not work then id still use the drug

if i can't prove that there is God or no God, but i can disprove that there is no God then id still believe in him and worship him.

2) How is his qualities not so, or you meant to say you don't have enough to accept it? the later in each question is logic, that is statistical power.

nferyn, which do you chose?

Lets start from the basics. . . He brought up three qualities that people tend to ascribe to God:

1) Omnipotence
2) Omnibenevolence
3) Omniscience

It can be proven, that it is impossible to be all those things at the same time. It is not so hard. Define omnibenevolent. From here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent , it is defined as:

Omnibenevolence is the property of being perfectly good, attributed by some religions to God. The word omnibenevolence may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, and so on, depending on precisely what is taken to be good.

It doesn't take an idiot to see the problem with God being omnibenevolent - why do bad thimgs happen to good people.

To be omnibenevolent and still have bad things happen to good people. . .that would imply God enjoys the pain of people and thus doesn't see it as a "bad" thing. However, that would technically be a contradiction of his omnibenevolence and thus , . it couldn't happen. So, a being that allows pain to exist CANNOT be omnibenevolent.

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

nicetohave:

I cannot prove this drug works, but i can disprove that it does not work.

And that is your justification for using the drug. And so, since (you claim) people cannot prove God exists, then you can live your life happy assuming that he does.

Here is something that would blow your mind.

It CAN be proven that having your head severed from your body will kill ALL cancer cells in your body.

This means, that decapitation is a CURE for cancer.

Let me know when people start using THAT proven cure.

The logic of that argument. . . while stronger than yours. . . illustrates the problem with your line of reasoning.

It doesn't take an idiot to see the problem with God being omnibenevolent - why do bad thimgs happen to good people.

To be omnibenevolent and still have bad things happen to good people. . .that would imply God enjoys the pain of people and thus doesn't see it as a "bad" thing.  However, that would technically be a contradiction of his omnibenevolence and thus ,  . it couldn't happen.  So, a being that allows pain to exist CANNOT be omnibenevolent.

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

Your reasoning is faulty by a million miles. You are trying to look at the attributes of God in a one-dimensional frame of reference - a limited constraint. Take another look at the divine qualities ascribed to God: holiness. A perfectly holy God will not only love purity, but by default He must act in perfect accordance with His holiness in situations of sin and impurity. It is perfectly in keeping with the attributes of a perfect God that He punishes wickedness and rebellion - qualities which are contrary to His character and personality. He cannot let evil run its course unabated. But if He zaps at every moment that man sins, rebels and spurns His grace, who would be alive today? And people like you would be first in line to say, "Aha! God does not exist because He has not shown mercy despite the fact that He says He is merciful!" Here we have a balance - and it is that balance that you have refused to look at. You are dreaming of a 'god' that is at best a monolithic being, one who is too rigid that he is incapable of acting in harmony with real experiences. God is holy and His holiness judges anything impure; but even so, He is merciful - and it is His attribute of mercy that helps man to not experience the immediate judgement of His hand.

In human relationships, any woman dreams of certain qualities in any man they want to give themselves to in marraige. He should be completely honest, gentle, caring and loving, among other things. Alas! How many times have you been dishonest, uncaring and unloving? Not trying to sound accusative, let me yet ask: Have you never stolen, lied, cheated, argued, said things to hurt people, acted cynically, put down people, . . . (and if you're married) - argued and been unnecessarily domineering towards your wife? So, just because you have failed at any one of these reference points (or qualities) would not be taken to mean that you can't be a good and romantic husband; less so could it be taken out of context to mean that you don't exist!

It's admittedly a poor analogy, but God has not failed any test of His attributes - He's not the one on trial: you are! You may not like this God and therefore write Him off as inconsistent and non-existent; but your premise is too narrow to draw any meaningful conclusion. Pain and suffering do not prove the non-existence of God any more than crime in any society 'proves' that the Police does not exist.

Think again about how many times you make contradictory statements: "then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be." Wait a minute: how could you tell the 'behaviour' of God, much less draw the conclusion that it 'contradicts' what He's supposed to be? How do you know the 'behaviour of God' if you deny His existence? If someone or something does not exist, how do you observe or measure his/its behaviour in other to draw upon a reference of contradiction? This is why your atheistic assertions are often muddled up.

You cannot establish  a broadly categorical denial of the existence of God by a limited frame of reference and inconsistent or contradictory inference.

choice.A:

Your reasoning is faulty by a million miles. You are trying to look at the attributes of God in a one-dimensional frame of reference - a limited constraint. Take another look at the divine qualities ascribed to God: holiness. A perfectly holy God will not only love purity, but by default He must act in perfect accordance with His holiness in situations of sin and impurity. It is perfectly in keeping with the attributes of a perfect God that He punishes wickedness and rebellion - qualities which are contrary to His character and personality. He cannot let evil run its course unabated. But if He zaps at every moment that man sins, rebels and spurns His grace, who would be alive today? And people like you would be first in line to say, "Aha! God does not exist because He has not shown mercy despite the fact that He says He is merciful!" Here we have a balance - and it is that balance that you have refused to look at. You are dreaming of a 'god' that is at best a monolithic being, one who is too rigid that he is incapable of acting in harmony with real experiences. God is holy and His holiness judges anything impure; but even so, He is merciful - and it is His attribute of mercy that helps man to not experience the immediate judgement of His hand.

In human relationships, any woman dreams of certain qualities in any man they want to give themselves to in marraige. He should be completely honest, gentle, caring and loving, among other things. Alas! How many times have you been dishonest, uncaring and unloving? Not trying to sound accusative, let me yet ask: Have you never stolen, lied, cheated, argued, said things to hurt people, acted cynically, put down people, . . . (and if you're married) - argued and been unnecessarily domineering towards your wife? So, just because you have failed at any one of these reference points (or qualities) would not be taken to mean that you can't be a good and romantic husband; less so could it be taken out of context to mean that you don't exist!

It's admittedly a poor analogy, but God has not failed any test of His attributes - He's not the one on trial: you are! You may not like this God and therefore write Him off as inconsistent and non-existent; but your premise is too narrow to draw any meaningful conclusion. Pain and suffering do not prove the non-existence of God any more than crime in any society 'proves' that the Police does not exist.

Think again about how many times you make contradictory statements: "then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be." Wait a minute: how could you tell the 'behaviour' of God, much less draw the conclusion that it 'contradicts' what He's supposed to be? How do you know the 'behaviour of God' if you deny His existence? If someone or something does not exist, how do you observe or measure his/its behaviour in other to draw upon a reference of contradiction? This is why your atheistic assertions are often muddled up.

You cannot establish a broadly categorical denial of the existence of God by a limited frame of reference and inconsistent or contradictory inference.

Limited frame of reference, inconsistent or contradictory inference. Wow, tough words.

1) I don't have to believe in God to make statements about what God supposedly is. I don't believe in ghosts, yet I possess a surprisingly large amount of knowledge as to what ghosts are. - think through your posts

2) So, are you saying I'm wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent? Or are you saying that God is actually omnibenevolent, and I'm not understanding the meaning of the word.

3) Since when do I need to analyze God from all possible sides. Shouldn't God be consistent from every angle. If we say God must be able to fly, there should be no way I can make an argument that proves God cannot fly. For me to be able to do so will either
a] Indicate that God does not exist or
b] Indicate that we were wrong, and God cannot actually fly.

So, I return to my statement, since you claim I cannot define qualities of God, let me use your own.

Lets start with your argument about balance. How can you define what God sees as balance? Since when did you become the arbiter of the balance between zapping us all for our wrongdoings and being merciful. Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved. I've never heard/read/seen God do that. So, God cannot be merciful. Unless of course, either I did not give an accurate example of being merciful or you are wrong in ascribing mercy as a quality of God.

Ok, the husband example. Lets start with God. We are claiming God is perfect. In order for God to be perfect. . .he must be perfect. So, if we were instead claiming that there existed a perfect husband, then that man would not EVER lie, cheat, steal, etc. You yourself have proven that since NOBODY meets those criterion, there cannot be a perfect husband. Similarly, I am showing that since the god described in the bible doesn't meet the criterion we accept for God, omnibenevolence being one of those, the god being described in the bible CANNOT be God.

So, wihle this does not disprove the existence of God, it just proves that the biblical god is not in fact God. If we ascribe to the argument that there is only one God and it is the god from the bible, then this will simultaneously disprove the existence of God because the nature of God is contradictory and if God was indeed perfect, it could not possibly exist as such a being.

See, something that is omnibenevolent would not want to allow pain to exist. However, just because you are omnibenevolent, does not mean you will get your way. Being omnipotent allows you to get your way. So, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would be able to end all pain and suffering wherever it went. However, it could not do this simultaneously for everyone, unless it was omniscient or omnipresent. (I won't delve into why it only needs to be either one or the other but not necessarily both for this to occur). So, an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient/omnipresent God, will end all suffering for all time. In fact, such a God will cure us of any inkling to sin. . . which destroys any argument about God having to maintain some balance between killing us all and being merciful. However, as you indicate, God does not do this, and neither does the police.

This means, God is just as useful (or USELESS) as the police. . . this would also mean God was not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omnicient. Which would mean there is no God. . .because if there was, it would have those qualities, and cure humans of all evil.

So, once again, either come up with better arguments. . .or tell me what YOU think the actual qualities of God really are. . . and I will write a response which is based ONLY upon what you say.

If for the sake of mere arguments you ferret all kinds of notions, it is understandable that you do so because you would not want to believe in God; but that in itself does not mean that God does not exist. The problem here is that you are actually trying to argue that He does not exist because you don't want Him to. Still it does not change anything about the existence of God. Let me reference a quote from you:

"Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved."

Where in my writeup did I describe mercy that way? Then you draw the inference that -

"I've never heard/read/seen God do that. So, God cannot be merciful."

So, if shooting someone in the head is the meaning of mercy to you, does it establish the non-existence of God because God hasn't shot anyone in the head while being burnt alive? How cheeky could you get?

Apart from reading posts out of contexts to such extremities, it's very disappointing that when you want to talk about the non-existence of God you actually pick up limited constraints. The point is, does God exist or does He not? If God does not exist, on what empirical basis do you make that claim? Words may be taken out of context to mean things they are never meant to - as in your example of mercy. If you want to discuss issues as a hard-nosed atheist, clearly state your claims and let's take it up from there.

choice.A:

If for the sake of mere arguments you ferret all kinds of notions, it is understandable that you do so because you would not want to believe in God; but that in itself does not mean that God does not exist. The problem here is that you are actually trying to argue that He does not exist because you don't want Him to. Still it does not change anything about the existence of God. Let me reference a quote from you:

"Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved."

Where in my writeup did I describe mercy that way? Then you draw the inference that -

"I've never heard/read/seen God do that. So, God cannot be merciful."

So, if shooting someone in the head is the meaning of mercy to you, does it establish the non-existence of God because God hasn't shot anyone in the head while being burnt alive? How cheeky could you get?

Apart from reading posts out of contexts to such extremities, it's very disappointing that when you want to talk about the non-existence of God you actually pick up limited constraints. The point is, does God exist or does He not? If God does not exist, on what empirical basis do you make that claim? Words may be taken out of context to mean things they are never meant to - as in your example of mercy. If you want to discuss issues as a hard-nosed atheist, clearly state your claims and let's take it up from there.

Well. . .damn man. . how do you define mercy? Give me your definition, and I'll construct an example around it. Then, we'll see if God adheres to that example.

You still don't understand. . . if we say that God makes all water fall at 10m/s and I can prove that water being poured out of a jar does not fall at 10m/s, then either it means God does not actually make water fall at that speed, or what we define as God, does not exist.

So, what I'm saying is either YOU have incorrect definitions of God, or, if by definition, God is, for example, omnibenevolent, then God, as defined by the bible, cannot exist.

It doesn't matter how narrow I pick at your argument.

If I examine a diamond of excellent cut, I should see near perfect facets, no matter what angle I use to look at the diamond.

If you are saying that your argument for the existence of God only works if I consider it from your viewpoint, but not any possible view, then. . . God as you define it, cannot exist. And there would be no point in discussing it further with you.

I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist, just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

I guess you'd come back with that. And I maintain that you state your assertions for the non-existence of God as clearly as possible then we could pick it up from there. Seeing that you didn't face up to that, I'd let it be - just so we don't tease ourselves with needless definitions of grammar. BTW, my definition of mercy does not subscribe to shooting anyone in the head as you put it - and you're right in stating that God hasn't done that.

this is getting interesting

I guess you didn't read my posts. I did not state reasons for the nonexistence of God, just reasons why the God you describe cannot exist. Two different things. You are choosing to employ whatever rhetorical tricks you desire to ignore my arguments.

If you disagree with my definition of mercy, then define it.

Let me look it up: mercy, according to : wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn it is:

if somebody is being burned alive, it would seem that the compassionate thing to do would be to put them out of their misery. Apparently, you disagree. So, please, give me your definition. . . unless of course, you feel no point in discussing this further.

Choice.A made it a habit of his/hers to ignore the actual arguments put forth and instead focus on rhetorical tricks. It's quite useless to try to debate people that are consistently ignoring your arguments and misrepresenting your views. I've given up debating him/her

@allonym and nefryn
i read somewhere on this forum that the God in the bible is either psychotic, he does not exist or he is misrepresented. I agree completly. Most people who tout the religion of christianity dont know the first thing about the nature of God
The argument about God beign omni- benevolent, potent and scient is very valid given what we observe but it fails in one respect; it only looks at the reality of what is said in the bible from one dimmenssion- the physical, 5 sense realm. So you either consider the existense of another realm that is not subject to our logic and science becos the foundation of science itself is based on the observable, or u do not judge the statements in the bible by ur own standards cos its explicitly talks of another reality removed from that which ur observations can quantify or qualify. Am i maknig sense?
Science as a rule cannot observe, measure or even acknowledge the existense of a reality that cannot be observed, measured or acknowledged with scientific methods. It is like a snake swallowing itself. So the best u can say is
we conclude that by our own rules, the omni-tri nature of the God of the bible cannot be proved but since the bible has its own rules, we dont have a case against the bible

Having established this, let us now fight by ur own rules.

there is nothng in the bible to suggest that God is omni-potent in this world, in this time frame, in this realm. it talks about satan beign the god of this world.

the bible clearly states there are two realms of existence, this one we can see feel and touch with our body and our mind and another we can only connect with with our spirit (of course u dont have to beleive or accept this but if we will judge the bible by its own rules we have to accept what it says of itself). The phisical realm is also said to be a subset of the spiritual, it gains its life and substance from it, it was created from it. an analogy is E = MC**2 as an irriversible reaction, if u catch my drift.

the story continues that, yes, God is omni-tri whatever in his primary spiritual realm but he created copies of himself and created another realm for them to be god over. this means they are omni-potent in that realm. why he did, it i will prob ask when we see face to face ,but some say he did it becos he wanted fellowship from beigns who had a CHOISE to fellowship wit him or not ( as opposed to his earlier creations who really didnt have too many options).
To cut the story short, man gave up the dominion or godship to someone else who was evil and becos God is also JUST and FAIR, he cannot take back what he gave totally to someone else who gave it to another of his free will, hence the dillemma. Where he can, he does what he can, but it is out of his hand for the mean time

So all the evil happening on earth is not his fault and he cant do much about it for now (but that will change very soon). Thus sayest the bible
so there goes ur argument out of the window

the reason why we argue so  much about the nature of god is becos we think he is some cosmic monolith in another galaxy. if u want to know about the nature of God look in a mirror. Why do we want children to raise, why wouldnt a human be content with with livin with life-like robots ? why do we empower our children to become independent of us and possibly greater than us, why are we ever willing to create new things and experiment? it is the god in us

i know u'all will cut my post to peices wit ur superior logic but, i have said my peice

nferyn & allonym/idiot,

First, I know that allonym is the same gentleman as idiot - because he mistakenly posted a reply March 17 under his idiot username; but before I could be done with my reply to his post, he had changed his post on idiot and left the terse word 'funny', then re-logged in and posted exactly the same previous reply under the username allonym. Just wanted to clear up that confusion so that anyone reading this reply would not misconstrue my reason for addressing 'allonym/idiot' as the very same person.

I believe that if someone is taking up a subject, whatever is being penned should be so done in a way that is intelligible and not ambiguous. It's hilarious that when you get tangled midway, you turn round and accuse others of the very thing you do - focus on rhetorical tricks. Whose rhetorics or tricks - mine or yours? Did allonym/idiot not clearly state how narrow he could get in picking on people's posts?

idiot:

It doesn't matter how narrow I pick at your argument.

It's simple really. There could be only two suppositions here: either (a) atheism - God does not exist; or, (b) theism - God exists.  What is the challenge you offer? If God does not exist, there is no midway or sitting on the fence about this - just clearly state your claim and let's take it up from there. As far as I know, nferyn has tried to consistently argue for atheism in other threads (see for example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4284.32.html) - although he leans towards a revisionist definition that is more agnostic than atheistic. So far, he has neither been able to logically satisfy the claims of his atheistic suppositions, nor has he been able to advance an alternative view that can intelligently and completely explain the complexities of metaphysical/supernatural phenomena.

However, allonym dribbles between two opinions so that he tries to make it difficult for anyone to know on what leg he dances. Is he for atheism, or confused between agnosticism, deism or theism? What am I supposed to make out of his inconsistent statements so far (emphasis mine) - 

allonym:

. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

idiot:

I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist, just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

                                                 ". . .then God cannot exist

                                         . . .I have not said God cannot exist 

People, who's been playing on rhetorics? In less than 4 hours a man makes a statement and denies he ever said so! So then, if allonym can't stand up to the truth of his own statements, what do I make of his painful art of dribbling between 'nonsense' and 'no sense' at all? I should not have bothered replying to these idiosyncratic oddities, but just so that there'll be less casualities when you hunt for your next victim. Believers are often accused of rhetorics and other nonsense when in fact it so happens on many occasions that atheistic apologists are the ones who party to such moulds. I don't lose any sleep over anyone mocking God - He knows just when to show Himself (Gal. 6:7). If you want to argue for the mere fun of it, the floor is all yours. But when you're ready to make some sense, I'll be back with a bang!

Perhaps you are unable to read.

It is quite simple, let us say that we are arguing about whether or not I am male or female.

If I say, "because I believe I am female, I cannot be male", as part of the argument,

I have not claimed to be female, just that in that argument, I'm disproving whatever views you may express which makes you think I am male.

Similarily, in the previous arguments, I make the argument that based on omnibenevolence, God, cannot exist. If you cannot see that this is not the same thing as saying that God does not exist. . . you perhaps need to spend more time in deep thought.

You are like a reporter, picking only the parts of a quote you want to show. It is quite obvious from the parts of my post that you quoted that you are obviously leaving out a lot.

SEE LOOK EVERYONE, CHOICE.A says God does not exist!!!:

choice.A:

- God does not exist;

allonym,

choice.A didn't say God does not exist - he/she was quoting your direct statements on March 18 where you clearly made the contradictory statements yourself.

Your quotes on the same day within 3 hours apart:

allonym:


. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

idiot:


I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist, just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

Since you're the same person as idiot and allonym, the writer made a very reasonable presentation of your inconsistency. You said something, and then deny that you did not say so. What kind of 'maradona' are you trying to play here? Will you deny those statements are yours?

mlks_baby:

allonym,

choice.A didn't say God does not exist - he/she was quoting your direct statements on March 18 where you clearly made the contradictory statements yourself.

Your quotes on the same day within 3 hours apart:


Since you're the same person as idiot and allonym, the writer made a very reasonable presentation of your inconsistency. You said something, and then deny that you did not say so. What kind of 'maradona' are you trying to play here? Will you deny those statements are yours?

So you are another person who cannot read as well.

No, I am not the same person as idiot.

I did not make contradictory statements. Why don't you quote the FULL sentences which you claim are contradictory, and then show that they are. Bet you can't do that.

How come you're not challenging my quote of Choice.A where he says that God does not exist. Or you don't deny that Choice.A actually made that statement. I didn't change or insert anything in that quote, it was taken directly from his post. Funny how I'm not the only person who can manipulate quotes for their own gain.

allonym,

Sorry, but when you switched from 'idiot' to 'allonym' on March 18, I saw what happened with my own eyes, and that's why I agree that choice.A was accurate in stating that you are the same person. If you want to keep denying the fact, shame! I saw the switching you made with my own eyes!

There's a difference between defining a concept and drawing a conclusion. choice.A was defining and distinguishing between atheism and theism (see above in his thread). He was not drawing the conclusion that God does not exist; he was rather defining atheism:

choice.A - (March 18):

There could be only two suppositions here: either (a) atheism - God does not exist;
or, (b) theism - God exists. What is the challenge you offer? If God does not exist,
there is no midway or sitting on the fence about this - just clearly state your claim
and let's take it up from there.


He was clearly defining concepts: that is not the same thing as an inference or drawing a conclusion. What you did was drawing a clear inference and so conclude that God does not exist. To be fair, I'll quote what you said:

allonym - (March 18):

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT
omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its
supposed to be.


allonym - (March 18):

So, an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient/omnipresent God, will end all suffering for all time.
In fact, such a God will cure us of any inkling to sin. . . which destroys any argument about God
having to maintain some balance between killing us all and being merciful. However, as you
indicate, God does not do this, and neither does the police. . . This means, God is just as useful
(or USELESS) as the police. . . this would also mean God was not omnibenevolent, omnipotent,
or omnicient. Which would mean there is no God. . .because if there was, it would have those
qualities, and cure humans of all evil.


idiot - (March 18):

If you are saying that your argument for the existence of God only works if I consider it from your
viewpoint, but not any possible view, then. . . God as you define it, cannot exist. And there would
be no point in discussing it further with you. . . I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist,
just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

See? Your statements above are clearly drawing inferences - your own inferences - that God cannot exist; and then later you deny you made the statement. Let me help you see your give-away about this 'maradona' dribbling you've been playing so well:

Under allonym, you defined 'merciful' this way:

"Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved."

When choice.A asked where in his writeup he so defined 'merciful', you logged in as idiot (not as allonym) and made the following statement:

"Well. . .damn man. . how do you define mercy? Give me your definition, and I'll construct an example around it."

If you were not the same as 'allonym' and 'idiot', you should not have given yourself so easily away by acknowledging you are the same person making that definition of 'merciful'. Anyone would have expected you to protest that you (as 'idiot') were not the one who defined 'merciful' that way but rather it was allonym. See how easily you had exposed yourself - and, yes, I saw it with my own eyes when you made the switch from 'idiot' to 'allonym' on March 18 as stated above. Please stop these childish lies - you're too grown up for all that.

Wow, you have posted a lot yet said so little.

The person who posts here as idiot and I share a computer. I posted under his account because he didn't log out. To be fair. . . I don't log out either when I'm done. . .

In any case, I'm starting to question your sanity. Here is what you said about my post:

mlks_baby:

allonym - (March 18):

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT
omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its
supposed to be.


allonym - (March 18):

So, an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient/omnipresent God, will end all suffering for all time.
In fact, such a God will cure us of any inkling to sin. . . which destroys any argument about God
having to maintain some balance between killing us all and being merciful. However, as you
indicate, God does not do this, and neither does the police. . . This means, God is just as useful
(or USELESS) as the police. . . this would also mean God was not omnibenevolent, omnipotent,
or omnicient. Which would mean there is no God. . .because if there was, it would have those
qualities, and cure humans of all evil.


idiot - (March 18):

If you are saying that your argument for the existence of God only works if I consider it from your
viewpoint, but not any possible view, then. . . God as you define it, cannot exist. And there would
be no point in discussing it further with you. . . I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist,
just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

See? Your statements above are clearly drawing inferences - your own inferences - that God cannot exist; and then later you deny you made the statement. Let me help you see your give-away about this 'maradona' dribbling you've been playing so well:

So, in my statement, I am drawing inferences. . . my own inferences, that God cannot exist based on the qualities of omnibenevolence and others.

Then, I later say, AGAIN, based on the nature of God as defined by Choice.A, God cannot exist.

Now, I will ask you, or anyone else, to try one more time to explain, how I have indicated here, whether or not I actually think God exists or not.

It seems to me, all I have done, is shown that based on assumptions made by Choice.A and the bible, God does not exist.

Perhaps, I'm the idiot and cannot read. . . but, you quoted me yourself, and still you don't seem to understand what you are reading.

allonym,

could I ask you a question? What is your premise - atheism or theism?

mlks_baby:

allonym,

could I ask you a question? What is your premise - atheism or theism?

My premise for what?

Okay. premise = basic assumption. Since you have none, I leave it to you.

However, I withdraw my statements that you lied. Apologies. It happens - between me and my brother m4malik and a few friends: we switch PCs many times.

Happy now?

i know premise is a basic assumption.

But basic assumption for what? Why there is nothing fundamentally wrong with communism? What my beliefs about a higher power actually are?

The fact is that God cannot be mocked. if ur not punished now theres always judgement day. its beta to believe in God and die to find out he doesn't exist than to live without God and die to find out he is real, '