A reason for existence of God

[K1Barin]

Pick one:

1] 0 + 0 = God
2] 0 + 1 = God
3] 1 + 0 = God
4] 1 + 1 = God
5] all of the above

Number 5, right?

No not number 5, I pick
0 + 0 = 0

Okay, how's this for logic:

zero actual hard evidence for the existence of a God, the God + zero actual hard evidence that a God, the God is your God = well, what exactly?

0 exactly. No Loving God.

[Immanuel Can]

Good is the state of pleasure for example whereas Evil is the state of pain

Well, that won't work. There are pleasurable evils, such as rape or theft, for example. And there are beneficial pains, such as weight training or medical therapy.

Now you are mixing things. There are two sides/persons when it comes to Good and Evil. One is the receptor of the action and another is the actor. For example, rape is pleasurable for the raper but painful for the one who is raped.

That's not how either works, actually. Rape is an act of aggression, rather than pleasure, and theft makes the victim a victim, and the perp a thief.

But either way, you're assuming your own arbitrary definition, one that is clearly not correct. Pain and pleasure come mixed, in life. And it's not at all obvious that you can identify one with "evil" and the other with "good."

So you'd need to prove that definition of yours.

But it wouldn't matter which kind of "evil" you decide to name...you're going to face exactly the same set of problems.

And I gave you an example of a person who has a locked-in syndrome.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

You're still going to need a set of criteria.

And now you've got the same problem: how do you get the criteria to make that judgment?

Judgment for which God is true?

No. For your claim that "God is evil."

You're going to need criteria of "good" and "evil," and criteria that exceed God. You are making a judgment ABOUT God, so you need criteria that transcend (i.e. are bigger than) God.

Well, maybe you'd better tell me exactly what you mean by "evil," and where you get your criteria for judging it.

I already defined what I meant by evil.

It's not important what you meant. It's important that whatever you meant corresponds to a justifiable definition of "evil," because that's the term you're hoping to apply to God.

Well, let's simplify: from where do you get your criteria by which you claim to be able to judge your "god" as "evil"?

For me, there is no God who can create things from nothing, regardless of His nature.

That's not an answer. Where do you get your criteria?

I didn't ask where you fail to find any.

No, I have not lost my basis for judgment.

You're not understanding the problem, clearly. I'm not making a claim as if I think you have some personal moral deficiency, or something like that. I'm asking where you get the criteria of "good" and "evil," since you obviously can't be getting them from your "god," because you're using the criteria to pass judgment on its character as "evil."

I already define Good and Evil. An Evil God basically creates Evil which makes His creatures suffer.

From where do you get that definition, so as to know it's right? What's your basis for thinking that?

Geez...'round and 'round with you...can't you answer a simple question?

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You still need to be getting your criteria from somewhere.

I defined what I mean by Good and Evil.

Same problem: where did you get your criteria?

I know what is objectively Good or Evil.

How?

I defined it for you.

No...where did you get your criteria?

Do you see the problem, B? You have to get your criteria from somewhere. From what or where do you get them?

From my sense of judgment.

That means you want us to think "Evil is evil because Bauman says." "Good is good, because Bauman says."

That's not a justification. It's just an assertion. We don't have to believe you, unless you have much more than that. You need criteria. You have to get them from somewhere. Where are you taking them from?

[K1Barin]

Imannuel can
We are on the same boat. Thanks God for Logic, and thanks God for Logical people like you, and thanks for good to be essence of Logic.
Thanks God for all the good people of the world.

I needed to say something like that to calm my nerves.

Kayvan

[K1Barin]

Imannuel can
We are on the same boat. Thanks God for Logic, and thanks God for Logical people like you, and thanks for good to be essence of Logic.
Thanks God for all the good people of the world.

I needed to say something like that to calm my nerves.

Kayvan

Sorry for misspelling your name.

[Lacewing]

Imannuel can
We are on the same boat. Thanks God for Logic, and thanks God for Logical people like you

Then you are both sailing a sea of imagination sustained by your own intoxicated self-serving logic. How thrilling for you to share such a journey together!

[K1Barin]

To complete, my assumption of my reasoning to prove the existence of a Loving God is Logic itself. Therefore to state that Loving God doesn't exist, either my reasoning has a Logical flaw, or Logic itself is illogical, which is void. I mean the facts I am assuming to reason based on, can not be wrong. What remains is reasoning which is to be judged.

[Lacewing]

To complete, my assumption of my reasoning to prove the existence of a Loving God is Logic itself. Therefore to state that Loving God doesn't exist, either my reasoning has a Logical flaw, or Logic itself is illogical, which is void. I mean the facts I am assuming to reason based on, can not be wrong. What remains is reasoning which is to be judged.

Whatever floats your boat.

[K1Barin]

Imannuel can
We are on the same boat. Thanks God for Logic, and thanks God for Logical people like you

Then you are both sailing a sea of imagination sustained by your own intoxicated self-serving logic. How thrilling for you to share such a journey together!

There is no Logical reasoning in that. Then you and your friends are all sailing a sea of dilution sustained maybe by hallucination. Maybe it's thrilling for you.

[Lacewing]

Imannuel can
We are on the same boat. Thanks God for Logic, and thanks God for Logical people like you

Then you are both sailing a sea of imagination sustained by your own intoxicated self-serving logic. How thrilling for you to share such a journey together!

There is no Logical reasoning in that. Then you and your friends are all sailing a sea of dilution sustained maybe by hallucination. Maybe it's thrilling for you.

Oh, I think we're all being thrilled by our journeys in one way or another. You seem to imagine that yours is so much more than it is -- and that appears to be what thrills you, along with imagining that you are a voice of Logical reasoning.

[K1Barin]

Then you are both sailing a sea of imagination sustained by your own intoxicated self-serving logic. How thrilling for you to share such a journey together!

There is no Logical reasoning in that. Then you and your friends are all sailing a sea of dilution sustained maybe by hallucination. Maybe it's thrilling for you.

Oh, I think we're all being thrilled by our journeys in one way or another. You seem to imagine that yours is so much more than it is -- and that appears to be what thrills you, along with imagining that you are a voice of Logical reasoning.

The reason for what I said was there is no Logical reasoning in what you are saying. If you have no opposition to saying you are diluting and hallucinating, then I rest my case.

[Lacewing]

The reason for what I said was there is no Logical reasoning in what you are saying.

According to you, which doesn't mean much. You have shown that your supposed logical reasoning is based on your own intoxication and that which serves you.

If you have no opposition to saying you are diluting and hallucinating, then I rest my case.

What am I diluting?

What am I hallucinating?

You're just making up stuff which proves my point that your supposed logical reasoning is based on your own intoxication and that which serves you. Immanuel Can does this too, so that's why you like the boat he is on: his imagination matches your imagination. Maybe you don't know about the reputation for dishonesty that he has gained. That's who you're aligning yourself with. Based on what you've been saying, that doesn't seem surprising. See the logic?

[K1Barin]

The reason for what I said was there is no Logical reasoning in what you are saying.

According to you, which doesn't mean much. You have shown that your supposed logical reasoning is based on your own intoxication and that which serves you.

If you have no opposition to saying you are diluting and hallucinating, then I rest my case.

What am I diluting?

What am I hallucinating?

You're just making up stuff which proves my point that your supposed logical reasoning is based on your own intoxication and that which serves you. Immanuel Can does this too, so that's why you like the boat he is on: his imagination matches your imagination. Maybe you don't know about the reputation for dishonesty that he has gained. That's who you're aligning yourself with. Based on what you've been saying, that doesn't seem surprising. See the logic?

When there is no reason, it is diluting maybe sustained by hallucination. What is my own "intoxication" and "that which serves me" is brought to you by reasoning. The things that "seem" to you are not backed by any reason. What I say maybe are imagination, but I have reasons for them. They are not dilutions.

[Lacewing]

When there is no reason, it is diluting maybe sustained by hallucination. What is my own "intoxication" and "that which serves me" is brought to you by reasoning. The things that "seem" to you are not backed by any reason. What I say maybe are imagination, but I have reasons for them. They are not dilutions.

So, according to you, what you say has reason... and what I say does not have reason... and although that may be imagination on your part, you have reasons for this intoxication that serves you, and that's your idea of logic. Got it!

[K1Barin]

When there is no reason, it is diluting maybe sustained by hallucination. What is my own "intoxication" and "that which serves me" is brought to you by reasoning. The things that "seem" to you are not backed by any reason. What I say maybe are imagination, but I have reasons for them. They are not dilutions.

So, according to you, what you say has reason... and what I say does not have reason... and although that may be imagination on your part, you have reasons for this intoxication that serves you, and that's your idea of logic. Got it!

No. I didn't get it. Maybe you are all thinking any thing about a Loving God is imagination. And you may have arguments for it which can include a lot of things. Ofcourse we know some have arguments for a Loving God too. But in the most fundamental point about the universe, which is Logic and its 1 and 0, there is no argument, or it is not muting me in any way.

[popeye1945]

Life reproduces in such abundance that most of it perishes horribly in a very short time due to hunger or being eaten, life lives upon the lives of other creatures, a horrific reality there is no escape but through death. This god of yours, he is a real fuck up! There is no reason for the existence of a god given the nature of nature.