Proof of God

[bennyboy]

I'm not trying to prove any God idea, and do not have to produce ANY ideas about God, logical or otherwise. I can only say that your religious tradition has glaring logical inconsistencies, and therefore IF there is a God, under any definition, it is not under the definition of your religious tradition.

“IF” God exist then in your opinion which is the most accurate definition of God? What you think how God should look like.

"IF" Boobledyboo exists then in your opinion which is the most accurate definition of Boobledyboo?

We know the difference between good and evil solely because of God’s revelation, and not by the exercise of our own reason. God makes the rules and whatever he decrees is just, yet God himself is under no obligation: if he wished, he could punish the righteous and admit the wicked to paradise. God creates in his creature both the power and the choice; then he creates in us the actions, which correspond to these.

We know the difference between good and evil because we have positive and negative emotions about things. It has nothing to do with Sky Daddy, and your argumentum ad nauseam is getting a little boring.

If there's a God making and enforcing these rules, prove it. So far you have a lot of blah blah blah and no proof that any of it represents reality.

As for the nothing being Good or EVIL, bullshit, and stop fucking saying it. Good and evil are definitions made by man to describe his feelings about things and events in his environment. Most people have a negative emotional reaction to baby rape, or to the idea of baby rape, and so baby rape is considered evil. No Sky Daddy is required.

And some people like Stalin, Mao … and their supporters define good as killing and raping people in millions. These people have positive emotional reaction on their killings and raping. Would you like to adopt their definition of good?

No. Because good and evil are subjective terms, and my subjective state is different than the state of those people, I will not share their definitions of good or evil, or of morality.

Tell me how many of your daughters were raped brutally. How many of your children were killed? Did someone kicked you out of your house and break it and made a pub, public house, or Disco bar while you are sitting in dust and begging for food and medicine for you and for your family?

If none of these things happened to you then why are you abusing God in place of giving thanks for the luxurious life He bestowed upon you?

If you want to see what is real calamity then only travel in Afghanistan and you will find not a single family who have not lost one or more members of their family (from child to old) because of the killings made by the socialist and secular forces.

Stop proselytizing.

I am firmly holding my position that good and evil have no meanings in the Godless Universe.

Then you need to learn how dictionaries work.

Man’s destiny is organized in a beneficent way, immutably determined by providence; every apparent evil is part of a larger good and is impenetrable to limited human logic and understanding.

Says who, and under what evidence? Under what definition? None that anyone who's outgrown fairy tales will recognize.

Let me ask a question: why do men lust after women, even though birth control and harsh laws will lead to non-reproduction and punishment? Your answer is that God is fucking with us: He gave us these desires to see if we could overcome them; and if we CAN, we will be rewarded with 72 virgins. My answer is that most of these behaviors represent vestigial behaviors-- they made sense thousands of years ago, and the slow process of weeding them out through sexual selection, natural selection, and artificial selection (like execution) has not caught up yet to the fast changes in society.

Please tell why people need Nobel Prize and electric chair. In other words, why people need reward and punishment?

Almost everything you say is based on a false assertion, or an unfounded one. You insist that the universe must have a beginning, but do not prove this to be so. You insist that people need reward and punishment, but have neither defined in what sense they "need" these things, or shown this to be so.

I believe my answer makes a lot more sense than your answer, and EVEN IF there were zero scientific evidence for evolution, my narrative would still make a lot more sense than yours. That's because my narrative is an extension of observable fact: some things persist, so it's probable that collections of persistent qualities will interact and move forward through time together. Your narrative is based on an entity who nobody can demonstrate having seen or communicated with, and whose definition is intrinsically contradictory.

Your observable facts have no roots neither scientifically nor philosophically. These facts are hanging in the middle of air without proper origins and evidences.

Look, whatever you say about my facts or interpretation of them, there is no point at which you can demonstrate that Sky Daddy represents a better fit for those facts than theories based purely on inference from what is observed. It is observed that patterns persist, and that some persist patterns can interact with each other to create new patterns. It is not observed that Sky Daddy had anything to do with it.