god

can we make it

>>1
Only if we try.

By definition, no.  Quick and summarized disproof which shows the impossibility of god:

God is a supernatural being.  Supernatural, by definition means outside of nature, meaning that anything properly defined as supernatural cannot interact in anyway with the natural world.  We cannot, by definition, even KNOW about anything supernatural.  Therefore, any supernatural being in the public consciousness is fictional by definition, otherwise that being is not supernatural.

And so on.  Such disproofs can be applied just as easily to any other characteristics normally attributed to a god-like being: omnipotence, omniscience, being worthy of worship, being greater or more perfect than anything else, etc.  Other characteristics like absolute benevolence and absolute justice can be similarly proven to be irrational.  Which then leads to the obvious only remaining scapegoat:  God isn't logical.  Which can then easily be broken down to the believer being clinically insane and such, as there is no longer any reason to have faith in something you can no longer even define or imagine.

If we cannot even KNOW about anything supernatural, then your whole second paragraph is just assumption and therefore FAIL, tar baby.

This shit isn't science.  Please stop fagging up the board.  If you're too stupid to do 1st yr calculus then just leave

That's funny shit! >>3, you do realize you just based all your logic off of a determined fact of what God actually is right? WOW!!! YOU KNOW WHAT GOD IS!!! Your statements are completely assenign at best. Your logic is flawed because you base everything off of "you have to be right, therefore everyone else is wrong" syndrome. Jeez, why do all the neurotics find their ways of spilling their IMAGINATION turned RATIONALIZATION onto the ripe ground and poison it with doubt? Personally, I would have to IMAGINE that you can only feel validated and "Loved" by doing so, but really it's a sad and pathetic attempt at attention getting. Hmm, yet another child is squashed when they believe themselves as gods and are then quiver in the face of a mere human. Sickening.

If any human wishes proof of some happening, even scientific or philosophic ideas, some sort of activity needs to be performed in order for that evidence to be acquired...am I wrong? Those that choose not to perform and expecting an answer from another person isn't acquiring proof, their acquiring someone elses idea. Sort of like an idea thief, but piss poor in learnability and self-discipline cause they simply will not do anything but talk, talk, talk until you walk away feeling even more stupid then when you started listening. *NOTE* If you here someone stating an idea or personal belief as though it were already in existence and provable; just walk away and don't suffer from fools. Remember misery loves company why do you think us humans stick together? Cause we're miserable, but imagination, and games, and movies, and plays and music and adventures and sports and interaction can be exciting and revealing...oh, but that involves work right...too bad CreamyCrack.

>Your statements are completely assenign at best

>completely assenign at best

>assenign at best

>assenign

*sigh*  Prepare for a wall of text.

>>4
>If we cannot even KNOW about anything supernatural, then your whole second paragraph is just assumption

Perhaps I need to walk you through this with baby steps.  Please allow me to try again.

The definition of supernatural is that which is beyond nature (see the wikipedia article for the "controversy" about the basic concept/definition of the supernatural).  If I can sense something, it is interacting with the natural world in someway (bouncing photons off itself towards my eyes, vibrating the air around it to produce sound waves, that sort of thing).  A supernatural being, by the definition of the word "supernatural", does not interact with the natural world.  The instant it does, it extends the natural world to include itself.  Because a supernatural being does not interact with the natural world, we cannot know that it exists because it exerts no measurable or sensable influence.  So saying God is supernatural (a common claim, expressed using many different terms) is saying that no one can possibly have even known that it exists and that it has had no influence on the world.  You are also admitting that your God is fictional, because since no one could have known about him, someone had to have made him up.  If you want the full (and probably better explained) version of this argument among many others, I will refer you to a book called "The Impossibility of God".  Be warned that all the articles in the book are full Logical (Dis)Proofs, and are extremely meticulous.  Some also employ Logic equations (set theory, etc), so it may be difficult reading for anyone who lacks patience.  Most of the general arguments being made can be summarized in a few sentences, but they take pages to show every little step in the logic (even the ones you may think are obvious).

Do you understand what I'm trying to say, now?  Please feel free to ask questions.

(oops, #9 was me, but since I never add a trip code, I completely forgot that saying "#3 here" in the name field would make one.)

>6
>you just based all your logic off of a determined fact of what God actually is right? WOW!!! YOU KNOW WHAT GOD IS!!!

Because we don't have a deity to put in a cage and point to, saying "that is a god", the only way to disprove its existence is to find logical fault in it's definition, its defined characteristics or conflicts between its defined characteristics, or to cite examples of of doctrinal conflicts of behavior (which only works if a believer holds the document to be perfectly accurate and true). For example, another common definition of God is "that which is worthy of devout worship".  I will again refer you to "The Impossibility of God", as it has numerous articles detailing why it is impossible for ANYTHING to be worthy of worship, but I'll try to give you an idea of what they talk about:

1) To worship is to make yourself humbled before a being better than yourself.  The degree of humility and suppression of your own will is dependent on the how superior the object of worship is to yourself.
2) The Christian god is described as the perfection of all virtues and power.  It is infinitely powerful and influential (all things exist because of it and can ONLY exist because of it, which is called necessary existence), it is infinitely knowing, it is infinitely just and benevolent and forgiving, etc, etc.
3) It follows, then, that as an infinitely superior being to yourself.  In worshiping it, you regard yourself as nothing compared to it.  You bend perfectly to its will, no exceptions.
4) If such a being were truly the embodiment of all perfection, it would be perfectly benevolent and therefore would not WANT you to worship it and anything that demands or even suggests such worship is truly monstrous and automatically becomes unworthy of worship and rather defiance.  (It is here that some then make somewhat of a leap in logic that obviously cannot be justified, but is worth consideration.) If such a perfect being did exist, it would, by definition of it's characteristics, take a path of either total non-interference or quiet minor and benevolent interference, pulling strings behind the scenes such that we don't annihilate ourselves in WWIII, for instance, though we would never know it was them.  Which of these two paths it would follow would depend on which exact attributes it really possessed (as no being can logically posses all the characteristics attributed to the Christian god, such as the famous example of omnipotence, benevolence and the observed existence of Evil in any form).

So there's one simplified version of why you shouldn't be worshiping God even it he did exist.  But as I said in my previous post and you have just demonstrated, when one destroys the definitions people have of their deity, they fall back on the "my deity cannot be defined" argument or the related "my deity is above logic and reason" argument.  Which is insane and only makes you look retarded.  If you cannot define what you believe in, you believe in nothing.  Period.  If you believe in something that by your own definition cannot be dealt with in the realms of Logic and Reason, then you are no longer using your brain and are admitting to merely going along with whatever your priest tells you because it makes you feel good.  In my opinion, you should be either locked up in an insane asylum or euthanized.

Also, I'd like to add that beyond what I quoted, the rest of your post was ranting and frankly pointless.  As for the post after it (#7), it is simply unintelligible and completely disjointed.  I really have no fucking clue exactly what the hell you're trying to say and suspect you may be on drugs.

>>6
You keep using the word "assenign".  You mean "asinine"?

Oh, I suppose numbers exist but God doesn't, right?

>>10
so, i'm just pointing out some things i don't like about this argument:

"The degree of humility and suppression of your own will is dependent on the how superior the object of worship is to yourself"

im not sure how this is clear

"You bend perfectly to its will, no exceptions."

this supposes people are capable of perfectly doing things.

"it would be perfectly benevolent and therefore would not WANT you to worship it and anything that demands or even suggests such worship is truly monstrous and automatically becomes unworthy of worship and rather defiance."

this essentially is the argument and conclusion here, and it doesn't seem justified very well at all.  how does one conclude that something perfectly benevolent would not want you to worship it?  the "and therefore" here seems a bit unsatisfactory.  why do things which suggest worship become unworthy?  why should people defy monstrous things?

I am God.
I exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Prove me wrong.

>>13
Like I said, it's a summary of multiple arguments I don't remember every little detail of (read it almost a year ago, now), so if you want the real deal, read the book I mentioned.  I don't have the book on me at the moment, but I can get it tomorrow night or the afternoon after and I'll scan some of the relevent chapters (or maybe even the whole thing and make an ebook of it for you as it really is worth reading, IMO).  I'd try to sum it up again from memory, but I can see that I'd just mess it up worse.  : )

Why do any of you accept esoteric "arguments" when you still have no evidence to support any of the premises within those arguments?

Haven't you faggots played Xenogears?  God is an artificially created alien, nothing more. 

This argument is moot. It's like an ant trying to understand the nature of everything from it's tiny perspective. To myself, God is an idea, "And ideas are bulletproof!" -V for Vendetta

>>16
The premises come from believers' own definitions of the concept and the suppossed inerrancy of the doctrinal texts.  WIthout a reason to believe in something, there is no reason to have a religion in the first place.

>>18
All the disproofs do is show that these ideas are illogical.  You can continue to hold onto them if you please, but now you know you are believing in something that cannot possibly exist.  If something really is truly outside our ability to define with logic and reason, it falls outside the natural world and then you fall back into the whole supernatural shitstorm.

>>19
Yes, even your assenign ideas and complete wasting of your own and other people's time is a true sign of your illogical requests for proof. If you want proof look within yourself as every human should, but usually can't get their head out of their ass cause they like the safety and have become accustomed to the smell of their own bullshit. Thank you once again for proving my point. Everyone's ideas are bulletproof and you consistently attempt to debunk something as intangible as an idea. Ok, kill every human on the planet including yourself and you will prove yourself and us right with your self-defeatist activities. God, wake the fuck up and become a real human being and stop pretending you are infallible and invulnerable you fucking child!

>>20
Only a religifag would consider a demand for proof to be "illogical".  Buddy, you are FAR GONE and should be kept away from sharp objects for your own safety as well as the safety of others.

Yet again, RedCrack feels the need to vent his frustrated ego using the very words of "logic" that any child can prescribe. I didn't say don't look for evidence, I mean if you are looking for evidence in a place where no evidence can be dealt you are a fucking fool and should be dealt the same fate. Hence the reason I consistently attack your ego. It thrusts you deeper into your own misanthropy. *Tickles mister willy* If you want evidence get out from behind your fucking desk and perform an action outside of a building and maybe if you actually get around to doing this we may consider you tangible, cause right now all you're doing is transmitting more and more conjecture upon discussion boards and it's boring the ever-living shit out of me. How about noticed discoveries of late? Any web links? Any pictures? Any other Things? NO? Stop posting words as evidence and start performing the actions to acquire the evidence yourself RedSack you make me ill with your assenign retorts and I feel stupid everytime I have to deal with you. Thank God you're not in front of me right now I'd spank your bottom for wanting to be so childish and impotent. See, the funny thing is that I post on these boards to promote self-respect and self-discipline, RedCrotch thinks its funny to be a child and waste other people's time. Well, RedPiss, I have done the same for you as you reach the end of this thread, heheh. Every time you post a post I post a response that is so long that it wastes your time and deprives you of long-lasting happiness as it robes you of your sanity and intellect. So, who's the child?

>>22
Once again, you have a cognitive difficulty in understanding what EVIDENCE really is.  You have NO EVIDENCE to support the assumption that EVIDENCE can't be collected about your "god".

Your belief in this immature and imaginary thing is all based upon a handful of assumptions that use EACH OTHER as their justifications.  However, the need for PROOF is paramount and exceeds any logical structure that you build.  The circlejerk of assumptions falls apart when you realize that there's no EVIDENCE anywhere in the loop.  The loop of assumptions is therefore invalidated.

... well, invalidated in logical and rational minds.  In religion-addled minds like yours (i.e. quintessentially retarded) it's impossible to reach that invalidation.  That's why we rational types have categorized things called MENTAL ILLNESSES in order to put you religitards into appropriate perspective.  You people are mentally ill.  You use an invalid structure argument to get around the need for evidence.  You're literally insane.

>>23
What you want you can't have tiny-Redling. I'm sorry but that which you seek does not exist, just as your future only exists in your head and not in reality. Christ, how long are you going to depend upon us to provide you with something which you yourself can't prove or disprove especially using words. My god, I really do want to see the depth of your neurosis, please enlighten us to this potential for human ignorance. The very fact that you rely soley upon evidence of which can not be derived from an infantile mind such as you have adequately demonstrate with each and every post. I hope to see every inch of your exposed neurosis in the future, little padewan.

>>24
Logical thinking is structured upon evidence, at least.  Logical thinking also achieves results.  Illogical thinking may get you laid, and sitting in a foxhole right before your commanding officer orders you to charge that pillbox, but neither stupidity applies when talking about RESULTS.  Religion is fail.  Religion is the very definition of fail since it doesn't rely on proof, and it should, since the proof against religion is blatantly obvious:  There are no gods since there's no proof of their existence.

The neurosis here is YOURS.  YOU are the retard who believes in things without evidence, and in fact contrary to what the evidence clearly says is true.  There is no pervasive "god" since such a pervasive thing would leave clear evidence all over the fucking place.  But there's ZERO evidence.  If one is devoid of a particular neurosis, one would rationally conclude that this "god" shit just doesn't exist.

Religion is fail.  I can't stress that enough.  Anyone who accepts the existence of an important thing without ANY evidence whatsoever is clearly mentally ill.

*handing RedCream a bigger shovel* Please enlighten our already deluded human race as to the infallibly superior knowledge you possess, oh pontificate One. "Please enlighten us to what YOUR definition of evidence means, perhaps we may be corrected by this instance as it seems to be plaguing us so evidenced by your remarkable intellectually stimulating rhetoric. And if you want to know what my belief of God really is? God=Potential, potential only exists in the future, the future can only be imagined and yes, therefore God can not be evidenced by mere small-time scientists unless we are able to observe absolute futures of course if that were the case there would still be no potential as it is already observed and absolute. How do you change the nature of the Ego? How do you change the nature of wind? Influence. I don't need to change anyone's mind about anything cause I don't care what anyone thinks it simply doesn't matter. What does matter are ideas that have potential and the only way I can transmit to any one else what potential really is is to ask you what is evidence? And if there isn't a way to measure futuristic potentials and relativities than CREATE ONE! Jeez, if Robin Hood doesn't exist, BECOME ROBIN HOOD! Christ did, Hitler did, George Bush did, The Popes did, Nero did, Alexander The Great did, King Lionitus did, Everyone who wants to live should live, but those who don't should be dealt the consequence of their own repressed intentions via their own words and actions. Please let's all assist these poor souls to their own graves. "Let me help you talk the wrong way off the ledge, let me help you tie the rope around your neck, let me help you hold the glock against your head, ON THE PLANK, FUUUUUUCK! -MudVayne "DIG" as in let me help you dig your own grave, RedCream.

>>26
You are free to define your God as "Potential", but it certainly is no longer a supernatural or sentient entity.  It's not much more interesting than me defining God as my dream 3 weeks ago.  RedCream is specifically referring to a supernatural sentient entity.