Why nonexistence of God is an impossibility

[Colter]

I'm not sure but I think the Urantia book has more pages than the Bible. I guess it is true since we now determine the truth by the number of pages it is written down in. How about the Hindu scriptures. How many pages is that?

196 papers, 2097 pages in the Urantia Book.

Last paragraph:

"And God-consciousness is equivalent to the integration of the self with the universe, and on its highest levels of spiritual reality. Only the spirit content of any value is imperishable. Even that which is true, beautiful, and good may not perish in human experience. If man does not choose to survive, then does the surviving Adjuster conserve those realities born of love and nurtured in service. And all these things are a part of the Universal Father. The Father is living love, and this life of the Father is in his Sons. And the spirit of the Father is in his Sons’ sons — mortal men. When all is said and done, the Father idea is still the highest human concept of God."​

 

[PsychoSarah]

196 papers, 2097 pages in the Urantia Book.

Last paragraph:

"And God-consciousness is equivalent to the integration of the self with the universe, and on its highest levels of spiritual reality. Only the spirit content of any value is imperishable. Even that which is true, beautiful, and good may not perish in human experience. If man does not choose to survive, then does the surviving Adjuster conserve those realities born of love and nurtured in service. And all these things are a part of the Universal Father. The Father is living love, and this life of the Father is in his Sons. And the spirit of the Father is in his Sons’ sons — mortal men. When all is said and done, the Father idea is still the highest human concept of God."​

Exact reason anyone should be convinced of anything by your quotes of this text is...?

 

[Colter]

Exact reason anyone should be convinced of anything by your quotes of this text is...?

They wont be, skeptics are negative depressive types of people who seek faults in everything. Even had they been raised by a community of saints they would have found fault with at least one of them. Nit pickers really.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They wont be, skeptics are negative depressive types of people who seek faults in everything. Even had they been raised by a community of saints they would have found fault with at least one of them. Nit pickers really.

Then why do you keep posting the quotes then?

 

[Colter]

Then why do you keep posting the quotes then?

Some people will read them and understand what it says.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some people will read them and understand what it says.

Understanding what it says is one thing. Actually caring about it in a positive way is another.

 

[juvenissun]

How does that make them "well-established"? I suppose, by that reasoning, the older theologies are much more well-established than the newer ones, in which case Hinduism is much more "well-established" than Christianity?

Well-established regions are in contrast with poorly-established religions by the abundance of contents.

Among established religions, the criteria of comparison are different. In fact, it is not meaningful to "compare" well-established religions. God is not defined to be compared with other gods.

 

[juvenissun]

I intend to. Watch out Christianity, my theology is well on it's way to becoming an established religion. Every time I repeat the same assertions they become weighed with ever greater truth and significance.

My prediction is that you will abandon your religion before anybody else accept it. I have seen this happened once to one of my brilliant colleague.

Nevertheless, it does not matter. A religion is for yourself, but not for anyone else. If you believed in it, that would be fine.

 

[juvenissun]

Don´t forget to predict early that you and your religion are going to be hated, ridiculed and persecuted.

Ignorant comment.

If a religion could be developed to that degree, it is probably well done.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well-established regions are in contrast with poorly-established religions by the abundance of contents.

Why is that the criterion for being "well-established"? It seems silly. According to your criterion, my theology is becoming more "established" with each post I make on the topic, even if each successive post adds nothing new and merely repeats the same assertions ad nauseam. If I copy-and-paste those assertions into an email, and spam millions of mailboxes with the New Testament of The Four, will my theology be better established? It would indeed achieve abundance of contents.

Absent any meaningful criteria for delineating between well established and poorly established theology, I maintain that my theology is just as well established as any that the religions of the world have to offer.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is that the criterion for being "well-established"? It seems silly. According to your criterion, my theology is becoming more "established" with each post I make on the topic, even if each successive post adds nothing new and merely repeats the same assertions ad nauseam. If I copy-and-paste those assertions into an email, and spam millions of mailboxes with the New Testament of The Four, will my theology be better established? It would indeed achieve abundance of contents.

Absent any meaningful criteria for delineating between well established and poorly established theology, I maintain that my theology is just as well established as any that the religions of the world have to offer.

You can repeat the same argument many times. The meaningful content won't increase a bit. That is how can one tell. Nobody is stupid.

 

[True Scotsman]

You can repeat the same argument many times. The meaningful content won't increase a bit. That is how can one tell. Nobody is stupid.

Plenty of people are stupid or at least they don't think and from my perspective that is exactly what theists do, repeat the same arguments over and over and over without adding any meaningful content.

 

[juvenissun]

Plenty of people are stupid or at least they don't think and from my perspective that is exactly what theists do, repeat the same arguments over and over and over without adding any meaningful content.

This argument missed the target.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can repeat the same argument many times. The meaningful content won't increase a bit. That is how can one tell. Nobody is stupid.

How is that any different to what religions do?

 

[juvenissun]

How is that any different to what religions do?

Pick up and read any religion book to see how many pages are there and how many repetitions are included.

So far, I only see one line of your religion. Could you elaborate it to 10 lines without repetition? I don't think you dare to. The more you said, the more mistakes you will make.

Can you imagine that Genesis 1 does not have ANY mistake?

 

[True Scotsman]

This argument missed the target.

No it doesn't. You are completely missing the point. Neither the number of pages nor the number of people who believe it nor their level of conviction have any bearing on the truth of a text. Zip. Zero. Nada. In 2,000 years no argument for the existence of God has ever been presented which did not require one to overlook some logical problem in order to accept it. And yet religious people keep trotting them out over and over again without fixing the problems. That's why belief in God requires faith and your faith in your God is no different than anyone's faith in anything. It's all just subjective belief in a priori knowledge.

I'm going to say the same thing to you that countless theists have said to me. You can't prove that the Gods of the four forces don't exist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[juvenissun]

No it doesn't. You are completely missing the point. Neither the number of pages nor the number of people who believe it nor their level of conviction have any bearing on the truth of a text. Zip. Zero. Nada. In 2,000 years no argument for the existence of God has ever been presented which did not require one to overlook some logical problem in order to accept it. And yet religious people keep trotting them out over and over again without fixing the problems. That's why belief in God requires faith and your faith in your God is no different than anyone's faith in anything. It's all just subjective belief in a priori knowledge.

I'm going to say the same thing to you that countless theists have said to me. You can't prove that the Gods of the four forces don't exist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I said you missed the point and you still do not understand.

It has nothing to do with believing or not. We only look at "what to believe". That is the very very first step of examining a theology.

The four forces gods has one line of content.
While others has at least a book of contents.

When you expand the four-source-god into a few pages essay, then may be some people will take a look of it.

Give you a simple challenge: you try to expand the four-forces-god theology into a short paragraph, then I will tell you what are wrong with what you said.

 

[Colter]

"The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world’s greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned."UB1955
​

 

[poolerboy0077]

[/font]Arguments from ignorance and incredulity, therefore gods, but not just any god, your particular "God".

Actually, the fallacy here is known as "begging the question."

For instance, OP is assuming, without providing justification, everything that exists must be there to 1) be observed, 2) have meaning, and 3) evaluate said meaning.