Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief, why does this seem like trying to teach an earthworm calculus?

With three 'persons' and with endless characteristics we can ask 'why' questions about.   

How do you know they could have failed to exist? Are you claiming omniscience?

Clearly the universe didn't fail to exist.

And you still don't seem to have got it into your head that I don't accept the concept of 'necessary entity'. You have totally failed to explain it in any way that makes logical sense.

When we ask questions about Jesus we are asking questions about his humanity and his divinity when we ask questions about God The father and the Holy Spirit we are asking questions about God.

Again, what is it about the universe that hasn’t failed to exist I.e. always existed?

[Outrider]

It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s and that we need, on the strength of that to “burn down the whole library”.

Fancy you not reading for context, that's never happened before. This is pitched as the work - or a work inspired, at least - by a perfect morality, yet's it's riddled with obvious, significant moral failures. From what it fails to speak out against - rape - through what it actively sanctions - slavery, genocide - through to what it aspires to - homophobia and misogyny - it's a fundamentally flawed code. You're suggesting that we should, despite this depiction, still accept some parts of it based on some sort of self-guided moral judgement, yet at the same time suggest that we can't morally judge for ourselves to find our own path with out.

The bible isn’t telling me to own slaves or to hate women or homosexuals but to love my neighbour.

]

You're reading it selectively. So am I, I'm just being even more selective than you are.

Unfortunately for the antitheist, the suspicion that they are keener on weaponising these issues for the sake of antitheism is always going to be there.

If I find an antitheist I'll tell them, I think they're wandering the yellow brick road with the straw-man...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of that makes clear what the definition of entity is that you are using, and contains a lot of begging the question and assertions.

Aye, more “You haven’t answered the question and that answer you haven’t given is wrong” nonsense.

[Gordon]

Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.

Then Jesus must be a composite then (albeit an incoherent one by your definition), and since one bit of 'God' went a-wandering around the middle-east some time ago then 'God' must be divisible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then Jesus must be a composite then (albeit an incoherent one by your definition), and since one bit of 'God' went a-wandering around the middle-east some time ago then 'God' must be divisible.

But not a physical composite eh, Gordon.

[ekim]

In Prayer:
Apophatic prayer means emptying the mind of words and ideas, simply resting in the presence of God, and it can be understood as a form of centering prayer.

Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions.  There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'.  No rest for the wicked, eh!

[Gordon]

But not a physical composite eh, Gordon.

So how do you confirm the existence of a non-physical composite? So when Jesus was doing his stuff he was non-physical?

You make no sense.

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions.  There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'.  No rest for the wicked, eh!

I think the problem with a lot of meta words is thar they are deepities where the user has given up trying to be coherent.

[Gonnagle]

Dear thread,

Well it is certainly a education, so far this morning I have looked up, non composite, entity and meta, just to try and grasp what the fuck you are all chuntering on about

Albert Einstein famously said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions," emphasizing the importance of thoroughly understanding a problem before attempting to solve it.
Here's a breakdown of why this quote is significant:
Prioritize Understanding:
Einstein's quote highlights the crucial step of deeply understanding the problem's root causes, context, and implications before even considering solutions.
Avoid Premature Solutions:
Jumping to solutions without a firm grasp of the problem can lead to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes.
Preparation is Key:
The quote underscores the value of preparation and thorough analysis in problem-solving.
Deep Dive:
"Deeply understanding a problem" involves knowing its root causes, implications, context, and repercussions, which is more than just recognizing the problem's existence.
It's a mindset:
The quote encourages a mindset of careful analysis and reflection, rather than rushing into action.

I am going to need more than 55 minute Albert, a lot bloody more.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear thread,

Well it is certainly a education, so far this morning I have looked up, non composite, entity and meta, just to try and grasp what the fuck you are all chuntering on about

When you find out can you let us know.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear thread,

Well it is certainly a education, so far this morning I have looked up, non composite, entity and meta, just to try and grasp what the fuck you are all chuntering on about

Albert Einstein famously said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions," emphasizing the importance of thoroughly understanding a problem before attempting to solve it.
Here's a breakdown of why this quote is significant:
Prioritize Understanding:
Einstein's quote highlights the crucial step of deeply understanding the problem's root causes, context, and implications before even considering solutions.
Avoid Premature Solutions:
Jumping to solutions without a firm grasp of the problem can lead to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes.
Preparation is Key:
The quote underscores the value of preparation and thorough analysis in problem-solving.
Deep Dive:
"Deeply understanding a problem" involves knowing its root causes, implications, context, and repercussions, which is more than just recognizing the problem's existence.
It's a mindset:
The quote encourages a mindset of careful analysis and reflection, rather than rushing into action.

I am going to need more than 55 minute Albert, a lot bloody more.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonners
"Avoid premature solutions"
You will note that Leonardo anticipated that - see quote I gave earlier.
A sub-heading would be "try to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible".

[Nearly Sane]

When you find out can you let us know.

You could bring back The Chunstinator

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gonners
"Avoid premature solutions"
You will note that Leonardo anticipated that - see quote I gave earlier.
A sub-heading would be "try to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible".

Dear Dicky,

I did see your quote and it lead me on to another quote which I now can't get out of my head😡

But yes! confirmation bias, I do that when I am picking out my horses ( love Cheltenham, straight to hell Gonnagle ) I say oh that's a pretty name then go and read the form only picking out the bits I like

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gonners
"Avoid premature solutions"
You will note that Leonardo anticipated that - see quote I gave earlier.
A sub-heading would be "try to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible".

Gonzo is right about this being more than a 55 minute problem, ir even a three pipe problem. I think in a lot of the thread people talk past each other because they have completely different views of what the problem is, and indeed in some cases, like me, are not sure there is a problem.

[Stranger]

That is an opinion, certainly, not exclusively religious though is it?

It's something your book says that you are trying to tell us we should take seriously about other things. It clearly says that homosexuality is wrong an punishable by death.

Why should we regard it as significant when it says thing you agree with?

Hang on......did he say Slave traders?
So much for God approving of slavery.

No. You've just found another blatant contradiction.

"20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." -- Exodus 21:20-21

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." -- Leviticus 25:44

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." -- 1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." -- Ephesians 6:5

[Stranger]

When we ask questions about Jesus we are asking questions about his humanity and his divinity when we ask questions about God The father and the Holy Spirit we are asking questions about God.

And......?

You have provided no logic that distinguishes the 'why' questions we can ask about your God and those you asked about the universe. And you still have provided no coherent justification for the silly idea of a 'necessary entity'.

Again, what is it about the universe that hasn’t failed to exist I.e. always existed?

Not failing to exist is not the same as always existing. However, the universe has always existed in the sense that there can never be, or have been, a time at which it did not exist. This is because (space-)time is actually a part of the universe.

[Gonnagle]

Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions.  There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'.  No rest for the wicked, eh!

Dear Ekim,

You are Sir, a cool gentle breeze on a hot summer day  ❤️thank you, there was this guy back in ye olden times a Evagrius of Pontus ( well according to my go to on all thing religious K. Armstrong ) and I quote " When you are praying, do not shape within yourself any image of the deity, and do not let your mind be stamped with impress of any kind"

And I do think it would aid debate if we stopped thinking in modern meaning and delved into the history of words like belief and myth and prayer.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.

Word salad. If Jesus was human or part of him was human he is by definition not fully divine.

[ProfessorDavey]

Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.

You can say whatever you like Vlad but that doesn't make it so, nor coherent in any way.

If Jesus (note one third of the three-part god you claim) was human then he is divisible into the constituent parts of a human - e.g. cells, molecules, atoms etc. If you are claiming god is indivisible then if he were human (and therefore divisible) then he couldn't have been god. And if he were god (and therefore indivisible) he couldn't have been human.

And that's before we get into the notion that you folks consider god to have three parts - so divisible, and therefore by your very argument cannot be god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And......?


Not failing to exist is not the same as always existing.

I ‘m afraid it does. When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist. The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist, which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can say whatever you like Vlad but that doesn't make it so, nor coherent in any way.

If Jesus (note one third of the three-part god you claim) was human then he is divisible into the constituent parts of a human - e.g. cells, molecules, atoms etc. If you are claiming god is indivisible then if he were human (and therefore divisible) then he couldn't have been god. And if he were god (and therefore indivisible) he couldn't have been human.

And that's before we get into the notion that you folks consider god to have three parts - so divisible, and therefore by your very argument cannot be god.

Yes a human body is divisible but Jesus’ humanity is not his divinity, which is indivisible.

[Gordon]

I ‘m afraid it does. When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist. The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist, which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”

Nope - that something ceases to exist at some point is not the same as something that failed to exist in the first place: the latter makes no sense anyway, for how could you ever know anything about things that failed to exist.

Your language is clunky - I think your are trying to say that some things that do exist must have existed by default, and you think that this state applies to your 'God' - but assuming this and asserting it is not the same thing as providing a supportive argument for it.

[Stranger]

And......?

Not failing to exist is not the same as always existing.

I ‘m afraid it does.

Back to mindless idiocy. 

Also noted the editing out of most of what I said, presumably because you have no answers to it.

When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist.

Drivel. We fail to continue to exist beyond a certain time. Having a boundary in time is no different from having one in space. None of this changes the fact that we haven't failed to exist

The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist...

It's a collection of things that manifestly haven't failed to exist but most of them to not extend through all of space-time. The actual space-time manifold, of course, is the background against which you are trying make silly claims about failing to exist. You are using a physical part of the universe as a yardstick to measure existence, which is actually quite funny considering you're trying to argue for something beyond the physical universe....

...which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”

The whole thing and every single part of it.

At the end of the day this is a rather pointless argument about semantics. It doesn't matter one iota to the foolish nonsense that is the argument from contingency and the illogical, incoherent fantasy of a 'necessary entity'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - that something ceases to exist at some point is not the same as something that failed to exist in the first place: the latter makes no sense anyway, for how could you ever know anything about things that failed to exist.

Your language is clunky - I think your are trying to say that some things that do exist must have existed by default, and you think that this state applies to your 'God' - but assuming this and asserting it is not the same thing as providing a supportive argument for it.

There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.
I think that is how philosophers use the term.
So we are looking for the thing that has not failed to exist.
It cannot be something that has changed because that constitutes failure to exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I ‘m afraid it does.


Back to mindless idiocy. 

Also noted the editing out of most of what I said, presumably because you have no answers to it.

Drivel. We fail to continue to exist beyond a certain time. Having a boundary in time is no different from having one in space. None of this changes the fact that we haven't failed to exist

It's a collection of things that manifestly haven't failed to exist but most of them to not extend through all of space-time. The actual space-time manifold, of course, is the background against which you are trying make silly claims about failing to exist. You are using a physical part of the universe as a yardstick to measure existence, which is actually quite funny considering you're trying to argue for something beyond the physical universe....

The whole thing and every single part of it.

At the end of the day this is a rather pointless argument about semantics. It doesn't matter one iota to the foolish nonsense that is the argument from contingency and the illogical, incoherent fantasy of a 'necessary entity'.

Poor Stranger. Trying to show that the universe which is the sum of many things is in fact, just the one. Wooooooooo