Re: Definition of God

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:17:01 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>>>You do not believe in the God of the Old Testament?

>> No. That is a myth.

>Which God do you believe in then?
>Please clarify.

I know that the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics must
necessarily exist. The Supreme Being is that entity whose essence is
existence - Pure Being. To that extent I am in conformance with a
small part of the Old Testament where Yaweh told Moses "I am who am"
("my essence is existence").

The Supreme Being is the sole source of all existence. Notice I have
not used vague terms like "Creator" or "First Cause" or "Prime Mover"
or other theological terms. That's because they are meaningless.

There is one and only one thing that you as a conscious individual
knows with absolute certainty, namely that you exist. You cannot prove
that to me or anyone else - only you know it for certain. Therefore
you are intimately aware of Being - existence. You know at a very deep
level that you exist and therefore you know that Being exists
(tautology).

So when I claim that the Supreme Being is the source of all existence,
that should not cause you any problem in terms of understanding what
is said. You may not agree with the statement, but you cannot claim
ignorance about what it means. You know what existence is from direct
experience, so if you accept the principle of causality, you will
arrive at the conclusion that existence must have a source. That
source must be a certain kind of entity. Causality demands that if an
entity is the source of anything, it must possess that property as its
essence. You can't give what you don't have yourself. Therefore the
source of existence has existence as its essence.

>>>considering that God is a figment of the imagination.

>> Is that the pink elephant God?

>Both

But pink elephants do not exist, therefore all you are claiming is
that something does not exist does not exist. That's a tautology and
does not prove anything.

If you want to convince me that God does not exist, then you must
specify that God's essence so I know for certain what God you are
claiming does not exist. To claim that the "God that does not exist"
does not exist is lame.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:21:05 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>1. If your God is infallible, how can he misrepresent his own essence in his
>own bible, as you suggest?
>2.Is Jesus, as part of the trinity, the same God as the God of the old and
>new testaments?

This reminds me of the group of blind men trying to describe an
elephant.

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible - Old and New
Testaments - was inspired by God. But God did not write either
document - humans of that era wrote it. And like the blind men, they
arrived at different interpretations based on their culture.

The God of the Old Testament is what pious people call "God the
Father" in reference to the Trinity. The God of the New Testament is
"God the Son" and to some extent "God the Holy Spirit". Those
characterizations of God are very different despite the fact that it
is still the same God that underlies them. It's the same elephant that
the blind men are trying to characterize but they get radically
different things as they probe it.

It all starts out when God told Moses "I am who am". That is the same
as saying that God's essence is existence. That's all you really need
to understand - all the rest is there to keep the barbarian masses
somewhat civilized.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[stoney]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:45:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:di4jf2l4g5a87597jkbkf4pehe1rc5gh8g@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:11:45 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:k4rgf2ti0v4q21vpdh1huaqejsnim6ip2f@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:khjef29jc6dhsh5mofj8i7qd3blljp1p2b@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood"
><danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
>> ><drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> ><snip>
>> >> >> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>> >> >> >something
>> >> >> >> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus
>Christ.
>> >> >> >> >I could never deny him.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
>> >> >> >real to me!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Take your meds, Dan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Thanks, but so far I've been able to get along just fine without
>> >> >any meds.
>> >>
>> >> That's a common statement amongst the psychotic.
>> >>
>> >Are you acousing me of being psychotic???
>>
>> Guilty conscience I see.
>>
>> >If so this is liable.
>>
>> You're liable to be psychotic?
>>
>> Please make up your mind.
>>
>No, you have slandered me.

You really should see a doctor about your paranoia. Nothing can be done
about your lack of cognitive aptitude though. [shrug] That's your
personal problem.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:16:53 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44fb061a.497953@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On 03 Sep 2006 09:54:23 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>No, you have slandered me.
>>
>> >I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the
>docket...they'll
>> >appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise.
>>
>> The court will cite him for contempt because he brought a frivolous
>> suit.
>>
>> Usenet is the closest to anarchy that most of us will ever experience.
>> It is not a friendly place. If you want a friend, get a dog.
>>
>Yes, you get a very good indication as to what the world would be if there
>were _only_ atheist!

So drools the Christian who's kind are at the forefront of constant;
ignorance, superstition, prejudice, hypocrisy, lies, theft, murder,
coercion, enslavement, cultural and physical destruction of soverign
countries, and more.

If atheists were running the country there certainly wouldn't be
a CRUSADE ongoing in Iraq along with all the other idiocies
against education, women, and science.

Dumb****.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:19:47 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>snup
>>>
>> I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against
>> me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of
>> court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an
>> attornet
>
>What's that? The mini version?
>
> and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do
>> anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway!
>> But don't be so nasty in the future.
>
>Oh, go **** yourself.

That's the only way he gets wood.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 03 Sep 2006 23:14:34 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
>>news:szk64g5atls.fsf@fnord.io.com...
>>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:di4jf2l4g5a87597jkbkf4pehe1rc5gh8g@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:11:45 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:k4rgf2ti0v4q21vpdh1huaqejsnim6ip2f@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >news:khjef29jc6dhsh5mofj8i7qd3blljp1p2b@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>><danwood34@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> >> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood"
>>> ><danwood34@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>> >> >> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood"
>>> >> ><drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> ><snip>
>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling
>>> >> >> >> >> >> theist.
>
>>> >> >> >> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there
>>> >> >> >> >> >is something wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never
>>> >> >> >> >> >accepted Jesus Christ. I could never deny him.
>
>>> >> >> >> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>
>>> >> >> >> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
>>> >> >> >> > real to me!
>
>>> >> >> >> Take your meds, Dan.
>
>>> >> >> >Thanks, but so far I've been able to get along just fine without
>>> >> >> >any meds.
>
>>> >> >> That's a common statement amongst the psychotic.
>
>>> >> >Are you acousing me of being psychotic???
>
>>> >> Guilty conscience I see.
>
>>> >> >If so this is liable.
>
>>> >> You're liable to be psychotic?
>
>>> >> Please make up your mind.
>
>>> >No, you have slandered me.
>
>>> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the docket...they'll
>>> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise.
>
>>I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against
>>me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of
>>court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an
>>attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do
>>anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway!
>>But don't be so nasty in the future.
>
>Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is "nasty"?
>(There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in a
>newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.)

Notice the christian; compassion, empathy, and the rest of the stuff
'Jesus' 'said.'


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

>
>
>Dan Wood wrote:
>>
>>
>[...]
>>
>> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those
>> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil, forthright
>> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest
>> and sincere discussions.
>>
>> I hope you've had a wonderful day,
>> Dan
>
>Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity

Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.

Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.


>than any of the crap I've been reading here in sci.logic
>recently, or anywhere else for that matter.

In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap.

[]


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:17:31 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news3OKg.27958$y7.22070@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com...
>>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:
>> <SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable.
>>>
>>> >> >> You're liable to be psychotic?
>>>
>>> >> >> Please make up your mind.
>>>
>>> >> >No, you have slandered me.
>>>
>>> >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the
>> docket...they'll
>>> >> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise.
>>>
>>> >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against
>>> >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of
>>> >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an
>>> >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do
>>> >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway!
>>> >But don't be so nasty in the future.
>>>
>>> Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is
>>> "nasty"?
>>> (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in
>> a
>>> newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.)
>>>
>> In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
>> with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Dan, for God's sake stop displaying your ignorance and go and find out the
>difference between libel and slander, before you embarrass yourself further.

'Jesus' said; "No."


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:39:21 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:js7rf291da1hksvjhrcr10db4e552nlbov@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:07:59 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >snip
>> >>>
>> >> In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
>> >> with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test
>it.
>> >
>> >Oh brother. You need to go to alt.religion.christian.baptist and look up
>> >one john "porno boy" weathery. He's also fond of threatening people with
>> >law suits - And sounds just slightly a bit more stupid than you do.
>>
>> Remember, this is the sanctimonious hypocrite who hid behind accusing
>> others of moral depravity rather than address his own fallacies when
>> they were pointed out.
>>
>That was the problem Chris assumed a position of superiority
>(or it seemed to me) and presumed to tell me or point out
>what he/she decreed were my fallacies.
>That is why I considered this pontificating. On occasions I
>believed we were essentially saying the same thing.

He.

>Chris, otoh, thought we were miles apart. One example:
>in applying the laws of physics we can go to go back to
>Planck Time. But, where we disagreed, imho, was the
>period beyond Planck Time. My position was that while
>some kind of physics was at work during this epoch i.e.
>T0 - 10^-43 secs. This was were no modern laws of
>physics as we understand them.

I would agree about 'no modern laws...' but am uncertain about if 'some
kind of physics' is even a player.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:18:21 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40BKg.34389$C6.29230@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>
>snp
>>>
>>> You're liable to be psychotic?
>>>
>>> Please make up your mind.
>>>
>> No, you have slandered me.
>
>Poor baby!

He's deluded.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:29:40 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

>On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:18:21 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:40BKg.34389$C6.29230@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>
>>snp
>>>>
>>>> You're liable to be psychotic?
>>>>
>>>> Please make up your mind.
>>>>
>>> No, you have slandered me.
>>
>>Poor baby!
>
>Actually, he was libelled. Allegedly.
>
>Lizz 'thrown out of the bar on a technicality' Holmans

I certainly hope you didn't spill your drink.....


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:05:58 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44fc8bce.5877109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>>
>>>> Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
>>>> you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
>>>> are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>>
>>>To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to
>>>read the Christian bible.
>>
>> So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh.
>
>Not in the least.

Bob knows that. It's the usual Christian Craven Cowardice

 

[stoney]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>> >
>> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
>> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
>> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>>
>> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to
>> read the Christian bible.
>> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful
>> killer.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent
>> >>people.
>> >
>> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>>
>> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?
>>
>> >
>> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named
>> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>> >
>> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or did
>> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>> >
>No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.

No change then.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:30:58 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uZiLg.24118$ry2.16574@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

[]

>> I think there was a great deal of misunderstanding and miscomprehension
>> of the essence of God in the Old Testament. God didn't change, our
>> perceptions of God changed in the New Testament.
>>
>Now wait a minute, if the bible is supposed to be the word of God, both old
>and new, how can God, who is supposed to be infallible, make the mistake of
>misrepresenting his own essence in the old Testament.?
>Are you saying here that God is infallible, or are you saying that you do
>not believe that the bible is the word of God?
>Do you see now how crazy doctrines like this are taken with a pinch of salt
>by atheists?
>None of it holds up to any real scrutiny at all.

It doesn't hold up to a casual glance.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:11:17 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

>On 4 Sep 2006 10:44:52 -0700, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Steve O wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I
>>> reckon.
>>
>>Given that psychotic is a property of something isn't it just as
>>possible to say:
>>
>>"Anyone who follows an omnipotent God must be a little omnipotent?"
>>
>>I don't reckon it follows when you start applying human attributes to a
>>God.
>
>Look, my kids think I'm a whole lot omnipotent, and I plan to keep
>it that way as long as possible.
>
>Lizz 'I charge high rent for nine months lodging' Holmans

And all had a 'womb with a view'......
[running very fast and not in a straight line!]


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44feb86a.82381656@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:15:35 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>As for my other beliefs, how the hell would YOU know what they are?
>
> I know that you are not a true atheist because you can't even define
> the God you claim does not exist.
>

It's not me who defines your God, dumbass - your God is defined in your
bible.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44feb8a5.82441375@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:17:01 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>You do not believe in the God of the Old Testament?
>
>>> No. That is a myth.
>
>>Which God do you believe in then?
>>Please clarify.
>
> I know that the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics must
> necessarily exist. The Supreme Being is that entity whose essence is
> existence - Pure Being. To that extent I am in conformance with a
> small part of the Old Testament where Yaweh told Moses "I am who am"
> ("my essence is existence").
>
> The Supreme Being is the sole source of all existence. Notice I have
> not used vague terms like "Creator" or "First Cause" or "Prime Mover"
> or other theological terms. That's because they are meaningless.
>
> There is one and only one thing that you as a conscious individual
> knows with absolute certainty, namely that you exist. You cannot prove
> that to me or anyone else - only you know it for certain. Therefore
> you are intimately aware of Being - existence. You know at a very deep
> level that you exist and therefore you know that Being exists
> (tautology).
>
> So when I claim that the Supreme Being is the source of all existence,
> that should not cause you any problem in terms of understanding what
> is said. You may not agree with the statement, but you cannot claim
> ignorance about what it means. You know what existence is from direct
> experience, so if you accept the principle of causality, you will
> arrive at the conclusion that existence must have a source. That
> source must be a certain kind of entity. Causality demands that if an
> entity is the source of anything, it must possess that property as its
> essence. You can't give what you don't have yourself. Therefore the
> source of existence has existence as its essence.
>
>>>>considering that God is a figment of the imagination.
>
>>> Is that the pink elephant God?
>
>>Both
>
> But pink elephants do not exist, therefore all you are claiming is
> that something does not exist does not exist. That's a tautology and
> does not prove anything.
>
> If you want to convince me that God does not exist, then you must
> specify that God's essence so I know for certain what God you are
> claiming does not exist. To claim that the "God that does not exist"
> does not exist is lame.
>
>
> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
>

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44feb86a.82381656@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:15:35 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>As for my other beliefs, how the hell would YOU know what they are?
>
> I know that you are not a true atheist because you can't even define
> the God you claim does not exist.

Since when do YOU get to define what an atheist is or is not?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

 

[Steve O]

> There is one and only one thing that you as a conscious individual
> knows with absolute certainty, namely that you exist. You cannot prove
> that to me or anyone else - only you know it for certain. Therefore
> you are intimately aware of Being - existence. You know at a very deep
> level that you exist and therefore you know that Being exists
> (tautology).

So far, I'll give you that.
So let's see where you go wrong...

> So when I claim that the Supreme Being is the source of all existence,
> that should not cause you any problem in terms of understanding what
> is said.

Yes, it does cause a problem.
How do you leap from your own existence to a Supreme Being?
What evidence do you have that there is one?

>You may not agree with the statement, but you cannot claim
> ignorance about what it means.

I certainly wouldn't do that.
But what you have done here is take a belief in your own existence, and
turned it into the belief of the existence if a Supreme being, with no
evidence whatsoever.
The only evidence you have is that YOU exist.

>You know what existence is from direct
> experience, so if you accept the principle of causality, you will
> arrive at the conclusion that existence must have a source.

I would certainly conclude that there is a source, but why should I conclude
that source is a being, let alone a Supreme One?

> That source must be a certain kind of entity.

Why?

> Causality demands that if an
> entity is the source of anything, it must possess that property as its
> essence. You can't give what you don't have yourself. Therefore the
> source of existence has existence as its essence.

But you are arssuming that the first cause IS an entity.
>
>>>>considering that God is a figment of the imagination.
>
>>> Is that the pink elephant God?
>
>>Both
>
> But pink elephants do not exist,

How do you know that?

>therefore all you are claiming is
> that something does not exist does not exist. That's a tautology and
> does not prove anything.
>
> If you want to convince me that God does not exist,

I don't want to convince you of anything.
It is your claim that God exists, not mine.
All you need to do is prove it.

>then you must
> specify that God's essence so I know for certain what God you are
> claiming does not exist. To claim that the "God that does not exist"
> does not exist is lame.

I do not make that claim - my claim is that your God is a figment of your
imagination.
So far, you have proven me correct.
All you can do is IMAGINE that your Supreme Being, entity, or first cause,
whatever, exists, nothong more.
It exists in YOUR imagination only, not mine.



--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Steve O]

> It all starts out when God told Moses "I am who am". That is the same
> as saying that God's essence is existence. That's all you really need
> to understand - all the rest is there to keep the barbarian masses
> somewhat civilized.

So, if I told you that "I am who I am", or if you read somewhere in a book
that said, "Steve O pronounced to Moses, "I am who I am"" then you would
automatically conclude that I am the Supreme Being?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"