(May 21, 2013 at 12:57 am)littleendian Wrote: Can't... hold... breath... much.... looonger.... :-)

Don't worry. If past experience with MS is any indicator, you'll let it out in a rush of laughter when you read his next post.

(May 22, 2013 at 9:38 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 21, 2013 at 12:57 am)littleendian Wrote: Can't... hold... breath... much.... looonger.... :-)

Don't worry. If past experience with MS is any indicator, you'll let it out in a rush of laughter when you read his next post.

As if a voice in a whirlwind talking to just one guy without any whitnesses wouldn't already be enough evidence, I guess we're really going overboard with this entire proof thing. Just look into the eyes of any child, you will see Him! Do you love your wife? There, that's God, can't you see? CAN'T YOU SEE? HE'S EVERYWHERE!!!1one

(May 20, 2013 at 4:11 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: These are typical symptoms when you know that you are guilty and will be punished

Same like when a police car is stopping you for a violation

Save yourself before you die, or prepare for hell

No preaching.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote: The problems with what you're saying in my opinion are

1 Let's say you have proved this place exists where g is, outside of the laws of time since there is no time there and is not material. But then you decide to impose laws of time and material things onto this place by saying the entity that exists here must be unique because if there was something else there like it then time would exist, not only is this a law of time I haven't heard of it doesn't make sense because why could you not have two entities existing outside of time and the material world, which law of physics or time or logic is this breaking?
Two entities existing without time and outside of the material world seems logical enough to me if you can believe that one entity can exist outside of time and the material world.

This is very easy to prove!
Just focus inside the proof context
A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

Quote:2
You also need to explain why if god cannot reflect light you would not assume god can't get a virgin pregnant or manipulate other material things.
You logically think god cannot reflect light because he is not material, light is not manipulated or effected by non material things.

If you accepted the definition of "Image" as light reflected from an object, then God is not an object
If you want to define a new definition of Image, then it may apply to God.

Quote:ovaries are not impregnated by non material things, non material things cannot communicate with a man and tell him to build a boat.

Where did you get this assertion?

The proof is a bit confusing because it is proving by contradiction, so it is proving the impossibility of the opposites, which is not usual for human understandings

It is also proving the impossibility of know how for god?
remember proving not explaining, by asking how you are contradicting yourself by following the proof itself.

In other words, you need to refute the uniqueness of God first then ask how he don things.

(May 25, 2013 at 3:27 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is very easy to prove!
Just focus inside the proof context
A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

The problem you're having, apparently, is this: how do you prove that this first cause- assuming I accept one to exist- is a conscious entity? What's to say it's not just a physical process of a pre-big bang universe?

(May 25, 2013 at 3:27 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is very easy to prove! Just focus inside the proof context A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

Oooooooooooooooooooooohh. The ye olde Prime Mover excuse for God/Allah. Humanity first tried on this dress with both Plato and Aristotle. You know, the dumb cunts that sat aroung thinking a century before your precious prophet. Does 'infinite causal chains' ring a bell? Probably not.

(May 25, 2013 at 3:56 am)cato123 Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 3:27 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is very easy to prove! Just focus inside the proof context A first event must exist, so only one entity must exist to start this event.

Oooooooooooooooooooooohh. The ye olde Prime Mover excuse for God/Allah. Humanity first tried on this dress with both Plato and Aristotle. You know, the dumb cunts that sat aroung thinking a century before your precious prophet. Does 'infinite causal chains' ring a bell? Probably not.

I find this funny. MS claims something must exist prior to the big bang, and he/she/it knows it is god. Well, no one, knows what existed prior to the big bang. To make such a claim displays how arrogant and ignorant that person is.

(May 25, 2013 at 3:27 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: If you want to define a new definition of Image, then it may apply to God.

Okay: The definition of "image" in the context of God could be: A projection of human inner desires for purpose and fear of death onto something that is bigger than ourselfs and transcends our lifes, i.e. our attempt at conjuring up something that gives purpose to life and waters down its harsh realities. I suspect that Freud could have written a lot about the terminology, like refefring to Her as "father" or "shepherd", terms like "flock" or what not...

Oh, and God is also a very useful instrument of power for the church.

(May 25, 2013 at 4:25 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 3:27 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: If you want to define a new definition of Image, then it may apply to God.

Okay: The definition of "image" in the context of God could be: A projection of human inner desires for purpose and fear of death onto something that is bigger than ourselfs and transcends our lifes, i.e. our attempt at conjuring up something that gives purpose to life and waters down its harsh realities. I suspect that Freud could have written a lot about the terminology, like refefring to Her as "father" or "shepherd", terms like "flock" or what not...

I have no problem with that as source of creating an "Image" of God

Using this as an excuse for God non-existent is illogical as I already proved God existence and you are not able to refute the proof.

You have no choice (if you are sane) but to accept the proof as a fact (till somebody refute it).

(May 25, 2013 at 6:38 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 4:25 am)littleendian Wrote: Okay: The definition of "image" in the context of God could be: A projection of human inner desires for purpose and fear of death onto something that is bigger than ourselfs and transcends our lifes, i.e. our attempt at conjuring up something that gives purpose to life and waters down its harsh realities. I suspect that Freud could have written a lot about the terminology, like refefring to Her as "father" or "shepherd", terms like "flock" or what not...

I have no problem with that as source of creating an "Image" of God

Using this as an excuse for God non-existent is illogical as I already proved God existence and you are not able to refute the proof.

You have no choice (if you are sane) but to accept the proof as a fact (till somebody refute it).

Kindly point me to that proof, I am not going to read all your posts to filter out the potentially meaningful parts from the deepities.