How humans are "slaves", and how that leads to the existence of God.

[WinterHold]

Err...

OK, so he's a dictator but you don't call him a dictator. It's only fair to warn you that you sound like a totally broken person trying to justify the atrocities your cruel master is inflicting upon you. Just some outside perspective, as I'm concerned for you. (See Stockholm Syndrome.) The fact that this master doesn't exist (or at least not the way you imagine it) makes it even more sad.

There's no evidence any of this stuff you say is true, so why you'd actually want it to be true is beyond me. And since your master isn't here, it's you threatening me with all this stuff. Obey or pay. Does that bother you, that you're openly threatening strangers on a forum? And you're doing so for your own gain, to try and earn points.

And it's you telling me what God wants, too. How am I meant to distinguish between what you say and the different stuff every other theist comes to me with? None of you have any evidence, and you're clearly not in contact with the same being. If you are, your communication lines are extremely poor quality.

What do you mean "doing" what he wants is a fact? Do you mean I'm doing it whether I like it or not? Whatever I do, that's what he wants?

He needs to get an Xbox and stop using real beings in his weird games.

Actually, no matter how I try, you'll never believe unless you were meant to believe.

Threatening is a word I don't prefer; "warning" is the true meaning of what I say. That's warning, just like warning people of an upcoming disaster.

Again rob, obey or pay is a warning, not a threat. I told you, that warning includes me. If you don't want me to broadcast it, you will find it in any near library selling Qurans.

It's not that I want it to be true; it's that I measured every evidence I have and my conclusion is that it has to be true.
What you would say next is probably : "bring that punishment if you can !". Well, I don't know when it will take place, but I'm believe it's coming. God will bring it down anytime he wishes.


A member here in this topic (Rhondazvous) said :

In truth, as I have said elsewhere, if god existed in any meaningful way, humans would not have to present evidence. Hid presence would be its own evidence.

His existence and the right path to him, speak for themselves.

About this line which I wrote :

In terms of "doing" what he wants only; that's a fact. It's a rule of the universe anyhow.

Our creation is a fact; he wanted it.
He gave us free will and freedom to do whatever we want on this, because he wanted that; and only he.

What he wants, becomes a rule of the universe.

What he wants to be, becomes.

robvalue

The default position for any claim should be a lack of belief. Otherwise, you believe everything you are told that can't immediately be proved wrong. Which is preferable?

The claim, "There is a god" should be treated with disbelief by default. As no evidence has yet emerged that the claim is true, continued disbelief is the logical position.

The claim "There is no god" should also be treated with disbelief by default. This puts you in the position of weak atheism when combined with the above.

Some may consider that the extraordinary nature of god, how it doesn't correlate at all with reality we observe, and how there is absolutely no evidence where you would expect to find it, to be enough to believe this second claim. Then you're in the position of strong atheism.

Some may say the concept is so ill-defined that statements about it are essentially meaningless (ignostic).

You're probably a strong atheist with respect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's no different.

The problem is in the "evidence". As a believer, I think the evidence is very strong on the existence of one God; again I did say that on AF for about..2 years now ?

The universe speaks of its origin, our bodies, our earth, everything.
If you can't see it, I can see it.

But on creation, being met with a "lack of belief" by default ? the evidence is too strong for me, for "lack of belief" to be the default. To me, I can understand lack of belief being a default when we speak about the concept of "multiple Gods" .

Abaris

a humanocentric, geocentric creator doesn't fit into that picture.

? humans and earth, are two of his creations.

The Quran made it clear that we know nothing but a fraction of what he created.

Take this verse for example :

( Sura 16 Verse 8 )   And [He created] the horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment. And He creates that which you do not know.

Rhondazvous

How did we go from natural disasters to printing money? Do you really think the people who are hit by hurricanes and snow blizzards are the same people who print fake money? And you read this somewhere? Where? In a supermarket tabloid?

?
What I said was clear; the U.S regime is bringing its own end by playing dirty games such as printing fake money and killing thousands for oil (like a parasite). I don't think a disaster is needed, the regime is killing itself.

Redbeard The Pink

1. That is ALL a pile of word salad. You are now just digging into semantics in an attempt to redefine Gaud as "not a thing" to buy yourself another post or so while you think you've dodged my argument.

No, actually by quoting the Quran it means quoting what I think God is saying about your argument

2. The verses you've posted do not contain justification for the assertion that Gaud is "not a thing." They make some vague statements about Allah's vague qualities and that's about it.

So, you see the word "There is nothing like unto Him", as him being a thing ?
Even the word "thing" can't apply to him according that verse.

3. Even if we decide to call Gaud something else (an entity, an object, a force, a being, or whatever), it still leaves you with the problem that if he is the only element of reality that does not have be the product of an action, that is special pleading and you just lost.

I don't think so. It's not like you gave an evidence that convinced me.