How is it that a group of people who supposedly do not believe in God, have ascribed or adopted these religious terms?

secondly why is it that you all seem to insist in these baseless descriptions when confronted by the absences of these terms in the bible?

Lastly If you are speaking of the God of the bible then are you not bound by what the bible describes as God? again so why insist on non biblical terms to describe God? Are your arguments so dependent on these terms you can not deviate or have you simply not been taught how to think of God outside of these 'religious' terms?

In one of my other threads some of you keep returning to the dry well of the omni aspects of God as if your understanding of God some how trumps the biblical understanding/definitions of God. How does that work exactly? You who claim their is no God, some how has a deeper understanding of God than the bible or those who commit their lives studying it.

(April 14, 2012 at 1:44 am)Drich Wrote: How is it that a group of people who supposedly do not believe in God, have ascribed or adopted these religious terms?

secondly why is it that you all seem to insist in these baseless descriptions when confronted by the absences of these terms in the bible?

Lastly If you are speaking of the God of the bible then are you not bound by what the bible describes as God? again so why insist on non biblical terms to describe God? Are your arguments so dependent on these terms you can not deviate or have you simply not been taught how to think of God outside of these 'religious' terms?

In one of my other threads some of you keep returning to the dry well of the omni aspects of God as if your understanding of God some how trumps the biblical understanding/definitions of God. How does that work exactly? You who claim their is no God, some how has a deeper understanding of God than the bible or those who commit their lives studying it.

Drich, this should be a somewhat easy task for you. Show without using the bible that an omnievil god does not exist

(April 14, 2012 at 1:48 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 14, 2012 at 1:44 am)Drich Wrote: How is it that a group of people who supposedly do not believe in God, have ascribed or adopted these religious terms?

secondly why is it that you all seem to insist in these baseless descriptions when confronted by the absences of these terms in the bible?

Lastly If you are speaking of the God of the bible then are you not bound by what the bible describes as God? again so why insist on non biblical terms to describe God? Are your arguments so dependent on these terms you can not deviate or have you simply not been taught how to think of God outside of these 'religious' terms?

In one of my other threads some of you keep returning to the dry well of the omni aspects of God as if your understanding of God some how trumps the biblical understanding/definitions of God. How does that work exactly? You who claim their is no God, some how has a deeper understanding of God than the bible or those who commit their lives studying it.

Drich, this should be a somewhat easy task for you. Show without using the bible that an omnievil god does not exist

What is the fav fall back of most atheist arguments, when they are asked to prove that God does not exist...

"It is not up to us to prove anything but to the one who asserts that such a god does exist."

You don't know how long I have waited to use that one Thanks i owe you one!!!

(April 14, 2012 at 1:59 am)Drich Wrote: What is the fav fall back of most atheist arguments, when they are asked to prove that God does not exist...

"It is not up to us to prove anything but to the one who asserts that such a god does exist."

You don't know how long I have waited to use that one Thanks i owe you one!!!

First off you ignorant fucking piece of trash, I did not assert the existence of anything - learn to fucking read.

Second, I should have expected an idiot like you to avoid the question.

Third, do us all a favor and off yourself in the most violent way imaginable.

(April 14, 2012 at 2:03 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 14, 2012 at 1:59 am)Drich Wrote: What is the fav fall back of most atheist arguments, when they are asked to prove that God does not exist...

"It is not up to us to prove anything but to the one who asserts that such a god does exist."

You don't know how long I have waited to use that one Thanks i owe you one!!!

First off you ignorant fucking piece of trash, I did not assert the existence of anything - learn to fucking read.

Second, I should have expected an idiot like you to avoid the question.

Third, do us all a favor and off yourself in the most violent way imaginable.

Shown up by the Christian Again. You asserted that such a god did exist when you asked that I prove that he did not infact exist.. Otherwise why ask for proof of his non existence? That is unless you tend to base all of your arguments on Red Herrings.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(April 14, 2012 at 2:11 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 14, 2012 at 2:03 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 14, 2012 at 1:59 am)Drich Wrote: What is the fav fall back of most atheist arguments, when they are asked to prove that God does not exist...

"It is not up to us to prove anything but to the one who asserts that such a god does exist."

You don't know how long I have waited to use that one Thanks i owe you one!!!

First off you ignorant fucking piece of trash, I did not assert the existence of anything - learn to fucking read.

Second, I should have expected an idiot like you to avoid the question.

Third, do us all a favor and off yourself in the most violent way imaginable.

Shown up by the Christian Again. You asserted that such a god did exist when you asked that I prove that he did not infact exist.. Otherwise why ask for proof of his non existence? That is unless you tend to base all of your arguments on Red Herrings.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Believe what you want asshole. This is my last response to you ever. For all I'm concerned, you could die tomorrow and I would dance on your grave then spit on it.

Quote:How is it that a group of people who supposedly do not believe in God, have ascribed or adopted these religious terms?

Because jesus freak shitheads show up here regularly and insist that their silly-assed god has all these "attributes."

If you wish to dispute them....take it up with G-C or some of the others

Meanwhile, we will continue to remind the jesus freaks how fucking stupid they sound.

We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:

Quote:

Quote: "The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:

Quote:

Quote: "And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

Boundless
Uncontained
Unlimited
Omnipresent
The containing and sustaining of all things
Omniscient
Immaterial

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

Quote:1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?

2) If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?

3) If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..

4) If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?

5) If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

6) If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?

7) If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?

Basically, This can only lead to Pantheism or stating that I, for example, would be GOD since suggesting otherwise would invalidate all the said attributes suggested to this supposed GOD. The whole Omni GOD thing is just to easy to debunk..

(April 14, 2012 at 2:18 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:How is it that a group of people who supposedly do not believe in God, have ascribed or adopted these religious terms?

Because jesus freak shitheads show up here regularly and insist that their silly-assed god has all these "attributes."

If you wish to dispute them....take it up with G-C or some of the others

Meanwhile, we will continue to remind the jesus freaks how fucking stupid they sound.

I think you have missed the bigger point. In that how can you be "reminding us" if what you are reminding us with is inaccurate?

again these are your terms not the bible or God's.

---

(April 14, 2012 at 2:22 am)TheJackel Wrote: We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:

Quote:

Quote: "The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:

Quote:

Quote: "And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

Boundless
Uncontained
Unlimited
Omnipresent
The containing and sustaining of all things
Omniscient
Immaterial

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

Quote:1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?

2) If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?

3) If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..

4) If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?

5) If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

6) If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?

7) If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?

Basically, This can only lead to Pantheism or stating that I, for example, would be GOD since suggesting otherwise would invalidate all the said attributes suggested to this supposed GOD.

Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the OP. Rather than assume what it says.

Quote:Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the OP. Rather than assume what it says.

I was just expressing how meaningless the terms are, or how self-refuting they are. It's rather irrelevant how they came to be in the religion. The fount of Knowledge might give you some insight into that as it seems like they are an attempt to assimilate Pantheism as a part of their religion as they had done to all sort of other religions and beliefs.