Philosophy Now Forum

Due to an inherent existential crisis, many yearn to live eternally to resolve that existential crisis. This is psychology.

A. The idea of an eternal life in heaven is a falsehood.
There is no way one can ever prove those who had died are living an eternal life in heaven.
In addition how can be ever prove 'eternity'.
Thus eternal life is an impossibility.

B. God is Impossible to the Real
Those [majority of theists] who yearn for eternal life knows that no conventional entity with known existing power will be able to fulfill their wishes.
Thus they are driven to invent the idea of an all powerful entity or an ontological god, i.e. an entity no greater can be exists to be real to grant them their wished of an eternal life.
As I had proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

Do you agree the fundamental of theism is psychological and not that there is already a pre-existing God waiting to be believed?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 am Due to an inherent existential crisis, many yearn to live eternally to resolve that existential crisis. This is psychology.

A. The idea of an eternal life in heaven is a falsehood.
There is no way one can ever prove those who had died are living an eternal life in heaven.
In addition how can be ever prove 'eternity'.
Thus eternal life is an impossibility.

B. God is Impossible to the Real
Those [majority of theists] who yearn for eternal life knows that no conventional entity with known existing power will be able to fulfill their wishes.
Thus they are driven to invent the idea of an all powerful entity or an ontological god, i.e. an entity no greater can be exists to be real to grant them their wished of an eternal life.
As I had proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

Do you agree the fundamental of theism is psychological and not that there is already a pre-existing God waiting to be believed?

Actually proof is determined by group agreement...your proof is relative.

Your arguments are just a continual rehash of "because people desire". People only desire what they need, and if biological evolution requires God as a need, then God is a byproduct of evolution.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:45 am Actually proof is determined by group agreement...your proof is relative.

Your arguments are just a continual rehash of "because people desire". People only desire what they need, and if biological evolution requires God as a need, then God is a byproduct of evolution.

My expectation is;

• 1. God as you stated is a by-product of evolution.
  2. The idea of God results in the consequences of terrible evil and violent acts.
  3. The current trend is, the cons of god is outweighing its pros.
  4. Since the idea of God is merely a by-product, we should and can get rid or replace it with some benign beliefs.

Agree with the above?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:45 am Actually proof is determined by group agreement...your proof is relative.

Your arguments are just a continual rehash of "because people desire". People only desire what they need, and if biological evolution requires God as a need, then God is a byproduct of evolution.

My expectation is;

• 1. God as you stated is a by-product of evolution.
  2. The idea of God results in the consequences of terrible evil and violent acts.
  3. The current trend is, the cons of god is outweighing its pros.
  4. Since the idea of God is merely a by-product, we should and can get rid or replace it with some benign beliefs.

Agree with the above?

Not really because those are your expectations; hence they are subject to you. Considering God is a byproduct of evolution, if biological evolution requires God as a need, then we are left with a biological strictly premise.

While biology may lead to God through evolution, we are left observing evolution in determining the nature of biology. This leads to a loop where evolution may result in God, but God exists though evolution with evolution being a defining attribute of God. This is considering evolution exists as a universal law; hence fits the requirement of divine reason. In these respects God is merely reflecting through God in accords with Biological evolution.

God reflecting through God is a definition of God.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:45 am Actually proof is determined by group agreement...your proof is relative.

Your arguments are just a continual rehash of "because people desire". People only desire what they need, and if biological evolution requires God as a need, then God is a byproduct of evolution.

My expectation is;

• 1. God as you stated is a by-product of evolution.
  2. The idea of God results in the consequences of terrible evil and violent acts.
  3. The current trend is, the cons of god is outweighing its pros.
  4. Since the idea of God is merely a by-product, we should and can get rid or replace it with some benign beliefs.

Agree with the above?

Not really because those are your expectations; hence they are subject to you. Considering God is a byproduct of evolution, if biological evolution requires God as a need, then we are left with a biological strictly premise.

While biology may lead to God through evolution, we are left observing evolution in determining the nature of biology. This leads to a loop where evolution may result in God, but God exists though evolution with evolution being a defining attribute of God. This is considering evolution exists as a universal law; hence fits the requirement of divine reason. In these respects God is merely reflecting through God in accords with Biological evolution.

God reflecting through God is a definition of God.

Read your post again.
You are the one who claimed 'God is a by-product of evolution'.

Now you seem to be changing tune to assert 'evolution is a by-product of God'?
If you insist God exists as real, then I have countered that with
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:26 am
My expectation is;

• 1. God as you stated is a by-product of evolution.
  2. The idea of God results in the consequences of terrible evil and violent acts.
  3. The current trend is, the cons of god is outweighing its pros.
  4. Since the idea of God is merely a by-product, we should and can get rid or replace it with some benign beliefs.

Agree with the above?

Not really because those are your expectations; hence they are subject to you. Considering God is a byproduct of evolution, if biological evolution requires God as a need, then we are left with a biological strictly premise.

While biology may lead to God through evolution, we are left observing evolution in determining the nature of biology. This leads to a loop where evolution may result in God, but God exists though evolution with evolution being a defining attribute of God. This is considering evolution exists as a universal law; hence fits the requirement of divine reason. In these respects God is merely reflecting through God in accords with Biological evolution.

God reflecting through God is a definition of God.

Read your post again.
You are the one who claimed 'God is a by-product of evolution'.

Now you seem to be changing tune to assert 'evolution is a by-product of God'?
If you insist God exists as real, then I have countered that with
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I am completely aware of what has been said, and no you did not counter anything considering God by definition is beyond necessity and can in effect be nothing yet still exist. This has been covered in two threads already.

More to the point:

1. God creates evolution, as a law mirroring how God moves.
2. God exists through this creation, ie law as strictly a set of movements, where this law creates God.
3. God creates God through creation which creates God; hence God exists through God because of a synthetic nature where God joins God to God by creating, with this creation canceling out void through pure being.

God is a creative process.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 am Due to an inherent existential crisis, many yearn to live eternally to resolve that existential crisis. This is psychology.

It does NOT matter what you call 'it', 'it' is still just your BELIEF only.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amA. The idea of an eternal life in heaven is a falsehood.
There is no way one can ever prove those who had died are living an eternal life in heaven.

This is false.

This can be very EASILY proven, to those who are OPEN to that it could POSSIBLY be True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amIn addition how can be ever prove 'eternity'.

Very easy to PROVE, to those who are OPEN.
Hither to I have found that it is an impossibility to PROVE, to those who are CLOSED, like you, veritas.

Can you prove life is NOT eternal?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amThus eternal life is an impossibility.

Contrary to YOUR logic and belief, if you can NOT prove some thing, like, that life is NOT eternal, then that does NOT make a non-eternal life an impossibility. But rather what it does do is just mean that you can NOT prove that life is NOT eternal.

To PROVE this point, TRY and prove that life is NOT eternal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amB. God is Impossible to the Real
Those [majority of theists] who yearn for eternal life knows that no conventional entity with known existing power will be able to fulfill their wishes.

I would have thought that; Those [majority of theists] who yearn for eternal life KNOW that A conventional entity with KNOWN existing powers will be able to fulfill their wishes. To NOT know and agree with this would be contrary to what a 'theist' is generally KNOWN to be like. By definition of 'theist' they would KNOW such things. This is because that is what they BELIEVE is true. (If what they BELIEVE, and thus "KNOW" to be is true, right, and/or correct is a whole other issue). But to BELIEVE and have FAITH, and thus KNOW is what the definition of 'theist' usually and generally entails.

Thus they are driven to invent the idea of an all powerful entity or an ontological god, i.e. an entity no greater can be exists to be real to grant them their wished of an eternal life.

Lol throughout ALL of your writings, in this forum, I have yet to see just one piece of writing of YOURS, that logically follows on from the preceding piece validly and in soundness.

Theists, contrary to what you write here in the first part, are NOT driven to INVENT the idea of an all powerful entity or an ontological God. This idea, if you are unaware, has ALREADY been INVENTED, and past on, to unsuspecting people. (Just like you, veritas). You, obviously, have the EXACT SAME IDEA of 'God'. This HAS ALREADY been proven by your own words just now.

As for your second part; that such a 'God' entity that is no greater can exist to be real, in order to be able to grant them their wishes of an eternal life, besides being JUST A BELIEF that you have, and LOVE to share with us here. OF COURSE an entity, which is NO GREATER, could exist in the real having greater power scenario. The WHOLE IDEA of an entity having GREATER POWER means that IT MUST BE GREATER, in and of ITSELF.

You, veritas, continually allow YOUR OWN BELIEFS to get in the way of YOUR OWN, so called, "LOGIC".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amAs I had proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

"Proved" to Who?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amMy point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

Your point is noted.

Although, to me, there may well be SOME GREAT TRUTH/S in YOUR statement here, but YOUR conclusion does NOT follow, from YOUR OWN premises.

One of YOUR premises is just so illogical that it is laughable. The reason you express such a ridiculous premise is OBVIOUSLY because of those OBVIOUS beliefs that you have and love to maintain, but this is what makes BELIEFS, and you, so laughable. The BELIEF-system, through the brain, actually creates the OBVIOUSLY WRONG premises you make up, but to you, THE BELIEVER, these BELIEFS create the ILLUSION that they could NOT be at all WRONG. That THAT brain creates such OBVIOUS distorted ILLUSIONS that you, yourself, can NOT see them IS WHAT is so humorous and funny here.

You, veritas, are SO disillusioned that you can NOT see the actual ILLUSIONS that are "STARING you in the face", as they say. The actual illusions that you are staring at, and that are staring back at you, are the ones that YOU WRITE down here. The reason I like pointing your flaws out is because you act MORE like a theist does, then an actual theist does. You have MORE beliefs and BELIEVE more in those things, then an actual theist has, and does.

P1. The idea of 'God' is fundamentally a psychological issue. (I agree wholeheartedly).

P2. That P1 led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life. (Is, to me anyway, absolutely hilarious).

1. The idea of God does NOT lead to the the IDEA of yearning. There is NO "IDEA" of yearning. One either just YEARNS for some thing ,or, they just do NOT.
2. A 'psychological issue' (whatever that IS, from YOUR perspective) has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on whether (an idea of), or more correctly, just YEARNING for some thing or not is involved. (Unless of course you can SHOW how a 'psychological issue' does have some BEARING on this?)
3. Are you really 100% SURE that human beings YEARN for some thing that they BELIEVE/KNOW is an impossible thing, such as an impossible eternal life. If you DO, then this is even MORE FUN to look at, and play with.
4. Your point IS; The idea of God, which is fundamentally a psychological issue, comes from an impossible God. LOL
5. There are even more ERRORS in just this one premise of yours here, that I will leave for now.

Conclusion. God is an impossibility.

This is just YOUR BELIEF.

WHAT is the actual EVIDENCE for this BELIEF?

Your conclusion; that God is an impossibility, provides great entertainment and humor for me, for three reasons:
1. From the premises that you are TRYING TO provide, and from the actual "premises" that you actually provide.
2. From not just the way you express them, but also, more sublimely, from the way that you are expressing them from the BELIEF that you are absolutely True, Right, and Correct. This really is funny to WATCH and SEE.
3. From the, so called, "logic" that you use.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:23 amDo you agree the fundamental of theism is psychological and not that there is already a pre-existing God waiting to be believed?

I agree that what is fundamental in ALL thought, which is ultimately what 'theism' is, IS psychological. This stands to reason.
But that does NOT necessitate that there is NOT an already pre-existing, prior to human beings evolution, God. ("Waiting to be believed", however, is just some kind of ridiculous, but also funny, assumption that YOU have made up yourself).

I have asked you BEFORE to provide YOUR clearly distinct and succinct definition for What God is. When you do this, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS if God actually exists or NOT. But until you provide YOUR example of What God is, from YOUR OWN definition, and clearly written in and from YOUR OWN words, then I have absolute NO idea WHAT IT IS that you are saying and BELIEVING is an impossibility.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:54 am
Not really because those are your expectations; hence they are subject to you. Considering God is a byproduct of evolution, if biological evolution requires God as a need, then we are left with a biological strictly premise.

While biology may lead to God through evolution, we are left observing evolution in determining the nature of biology. This leads to a loop where evolution may result in God, but God exists though evolution with evolution being a defining attribute of God. This is considering evolution exists as a universal law; hence fits the requirement of divine reason. In these respects God is merely reflecting through God in accords with Biological evolution.

God reflecting through God is a definition of God.

Read your post again.
You are the one who claimed 'God is a by-product of evolution'.

Now you seem to be changing tune to assert 'evolution is a by-product of God'?
If you insist God exists as real, then I have countered that with
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I am completely aware of what has been said, and no you did not counter anything considering God by definition is beyond necessity and can in effect be nothing yet still exist. This has been covered in two threads already.

More to the point:

1. God creates evolution, as a law mirroring how God moves.
2. God exists through this creation, ie law as strictly a set of movements, where this law creates God.
3. God creates God through creation which creates God; hence God exists through God because of a synthetic nature where God joins God to God by creating, with this creation canceling out void through pure being.

God is a creative process.

Your first premise is wrong because you simply God exists without proofs.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:01 am P1. The idea of 'God' is fundamentally a psychological issue. (I agree wholeheartedly).

P2. That P1 led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life. (Is, to me anyway, absolutely hilarious).

1. The idea of God does NOT lead to the the IDEA of yearning. There is NO "IDEA" of yearning. One either just YEARNS for some thing ,or, they just do NOT.
2. A 'psychological issue' (whatever that IS, from YOUR perspective) has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on whether (an idea of), or more correctly, just YEARNING for some thing or not is involved. (Unless of course you can SHOW how a 'psychological issue' does have some BEARING on this?)
3. Are you really 100% SURE that human beings YEARN for some thing that they BELIEVE/KNOW is an impossible thing, such as an impossible eternal life. If you DO, then this is even MORE FUN to look at, and play with.
4. Your point IS; The idea of God, which is fundamentally a psychological issue, comes from an impossible God. LOL
5. There are even more ERRORS in just this one premise of yours here, that I will leave for now.

Conclusion. God is an impossibility.

This is just YOUR BELIEF.

Noted your posts which is full or errors and the problem with the above is;

i. Re point 1 above, I did not claim the idea of God drives the yearning.
ii. As stated in my post [you did not read properly] it is the fundamental psychological impulses that drive the yearning for eternal life.
iii. To ensure eternal life, theists invented an all powerful God who can give them that promise. Obviously theists believed their invented all powerful God is possible and can delivers.

Re point 3. That is very stupid.
Where did I claim theists believe in an impossible God?
Note my points i-iii above.

Theists obviously believe their God is a possibility.
It is me who prove the theists are wrong and their God is an impossibility.
Get it!

Your whole post is filled with similar errors and straw men.

The proof of the theists' yearning for eternal life in a heaven/paradise is very evident in the holy texts delivered by God via its agent.
1. From my research and analysis more than 30% of the 6236 verses are related to 'eternal life'. Muslims will even kill whatever is a threat to this promise.

2. I have not analyzed the Bible. However one can gather from the main intent of Christians re the Bible is an eventual salvation of eternal life in a heaven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_l ... istianity)

In the absence of the idea of eternal life, theists associate God with continual life after death as in Hinduism in general.

Btw, I did not claim ALL theists yearns for an eternal life or afterlife, e.g. the later deists, pantheists, panentheists generally do not speak of such.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:01 am P1. The idea of 'God' is fundamentally a psychological issue. (I agree wholeheartedly).

P2. That P1 led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life. (Is, to me anyway, absolutely hilarious).

1. The idea of God does NOT lead to the the IDEA of yearning. There is NO "IDEA" of yearning. One either just YEARNS for some thing ,or, they just do NOT.
2. A 'psychological issue' (whatever that IS, from YOUR perspective) has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on whether (an idea of), or more correctly, just YEARNING for some thing or not is involved. (Unless of course you can SHOW how a 'psychological issue' does have some BEARING on this?)
3. Are you really 100% SURE that human beings YEARN for some thing that they BELIEVE/KNOW is an impossible thing, such as an impossible eternal life. If you DO, then this is even MORE FUN to look at, and play with.
4. Your point IS; The idea of God, which is fundamentally a psychological issue, comes from an impossible God. LOL
5. There are even more ERRORS in just this one premise of yours here, that I will leave for now.

Conclusion. God is an impossibility.

This is just YOUR BELIEF.

Noted your posts which is full or errors and the problem with the above is;

i. Re point 1 above, I did not claim the idea of God drives the yearning.[/quote]

WHERE is the error in point 1. above, and, how is this a problem?

I did NOT claim, that you claimed the idea of God drives the yearning. So, there is NO error, nor any problem at all, from me in point 1.

What you stated was:
My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.
Therefore, that is what you claimed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amii. As stated in my post [you did not read properly] it is the fundamental psychological impulses that drive the yearning for eternal life.

NOT exactly True as what you did state in YOUR post was;
My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

Due to an inherent existential crisis, many yearn to live eternally to resolve that existential crisis. This is psychology.

If you WERE to be Truly OPEN and HONEST with us here, and even with your self, and NOT TRYING TO be deceitful, deceptive, nor TRYING TO hide ANY thing, in any way, at all, then you would have also provided links and references of what you ACTUALLY DID WRITE.

You have NOT provided any reference back to your OWN, so called, "argument" so that the actual Truth here can be easily seen. This is contradictory, in and of itself, and just more evidence of how self-contradictory YOUR writings really are, especially considering you have even TRIED TO argue for the NECESSITY of providing links, references, et cetera in another discuss. You, yourself, do NOT even provide EXAMPLES of what you are TRYING TO argue for, let alone the CORRECT links, references, and supporting evidences.

Seeing as though you have NOT provided any thing, then I will, as I have just done.

What you, veritas, did ACTUALLY WRITE is;
My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

And, this does NOT at all state; that "it", (whatever "it" is) is fundamental psychological impulses that drives yearning.

To me, what you stated, and TRIED TO argue for, was;
My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

Roughly translated means;
The idea of God, is
Fundamentally a psychological issue,
That led to the idea of yearning,
For an impossible eternal life,
From an impossible God.

WHICH does NOT state, as you proposed here, that: It is the fundamental psychological impulses that drive the yearning for eternal life.

Which, by the way to me, actually says and states absolutely NO THING at all.

But the obvious absurdity of YOUR "argument" did NOT really NEED highlighting. This does NOT fit in with what you said previously.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amiii. To ensure eternal life, theists invented an all powerful God who can give them that promise.

The word 'theist' roughly means one who BELIEVES in God.
So, to be able to BELIEVE in God, or in other words BE a "theist", then A God would have to exist, or be invented, PRIOR to one becoming a "theist"
As I have previously alluded to; Theists do NOT invent God. Theists are the result of an already existing God, or of an already invented God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am Obviously theists believed their invented all powerful God is possible and can delivers.

But this is NOT what you originally stated and wrote, which was;
My point is the idea of God is fundamentally a psychological issue that led to the idea of yearning for an impossible eternal life from an impossible God.

So, if as you say now, that theists OBVIOUSLY believed their "invented" all powerful God is possible and can deliver, then why did you previously write that: the idea of yearning for an impossible life from an impossible God?

In this statement here you are OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO portray that theists yearn for the impossible, which I have already stated is an extremely ridiculous comment to make. Even when you TRY TO "justify" your beliefs, with lies and deception, you even still make more extremely ridiculous statement such as;
Obviously theists believed their INVENTED all powerful God ....

So, once again, we are back to me having to point out what the actual Truth is, and that is; Theists would NOT believe in an "INVENTED" God. That is a term, in and by itself, which is obviously completely false and misleading. To me, it is an obvious, although subliminal to "others"', attempt by the belief-system to TRY TO form another statement which would fit in with its own BELIEF. In other words, it is just another attempt by an extremely disillusioned brain to TRY TO justify its self

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amRe point 3. That is very stupid.

Well this is settled then. Because YOU BELIEVE and say it is, then it MUST BE the case.

Where did I claim theists believe in an impossible God?
Note my points i-iii above.[/quote]

To me this is the type of form of what you are saying and are now asking;
i. I do not claim theists believe in an impossible God.
ii. I do not claim theists believe in an impossible God.
iii. I do not claim theists believe in an impossible God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amWhere did I claim theists believe in an impossible God?
Note my points i-iii above.

I did NOT claim that you claimed theists believe in an impossible God.

Linking to references that you just make now in this post, that is; i-iii, is a very deceptive way to act. Especially considering WHERE you claimed that theists yearn for some thing that believe is an impossible God, WAS in YOUR previous post, in which I replied to, that you have replied to here, of which I am now responding to.

Theists obviously believe their God is a possibility.

Although you claimed PREVIOUSLY that; theist yearn for some thing that they BELIEVE is an impossible thing. You used the words "an impossible God".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIt is me who prove the theists are wrong and their God is an impossibility.

Get it!

You have NOT got what I am saying at all. I am NOT arguing for any thing. Like what you are doing, that is; continually trying to form arguments to back up and support your already held BELIEFS. What I am doing instead is just pointing out your inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors.

You hold the BELIEF that God is an impossibility and also BELIEVE that you have already proved this to be an irrefutable Truth. This I can accept because I KNOW WHY you are so disillusioned. So I am NOT disputing this nor talking about this.

What I am talking about is when you are stating things like: Theists yearn for some thing that is an impossibility. This very simple point of error is all I am making. The "impossibility" part comes from YOU BELIEF. Theists would obviously NOT yearn for some thing that they see as an impossibility. Therefore, stop STATING THINGS LIKE THAT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amYour whole post is filled with similar errors and straw men.

If you say so. The readers can be, will be, and are, the judge here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amThe proof of the theists' yearning for eternal life in a heaven/paradise is very evident in the holy texts delivered by God via its agent.

Completely OFF from the point that I was making.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am1. From my research and analysis more than 30% of the 6236 verses are related to 'eternal life'. Muslims will even kill whatever is a threat to this promise.

Interpretation and belief.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am2. I have not analyzed the Bible. However one can gather from the main intent of Christians re the Bible is an eventual salvation of eternal life in a heaven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_l ... istianity)

So what?

Off topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIn the absence of the idea of eternal life, theists associate God with continual life after death as in Hinduism in general.

Interpretation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amBtw, I did not claim ALL theists yearns for an eternal life or afterlife, e.g. the later deists, pantheists, panentheists generally do not speak of such.

Who cares? This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have been TALKING about.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am2. I have not analyzed the Bible. However one can gather from the main intent of Christians re the Bible is an eventual salvation of eternal life in a heaven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_l ... istianity)

So what?

Off topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIn the absence of the idea of eternal life, theists associate God with continual life after death as in Hinduism in general.

Interpretation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amBtw, I did not claim ALL theists yearns for an eternal life or afterlife, e.g. the later deists, pantheists, panentheists generally do not speak of such.

Who cares? This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have been TALKING about.

Btw, I am the one who raise this OP.
Who give a damn with all your errors and drivels in relation to the OP.
My points above, I believe strongly, is to bring your off-tangents back to base.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIt is me who prove the theists are wrong and their God is an impossibility.

God is only an impossibility by the attributes that you have defined to it.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Not all theists believe God is omniscient and omnipotent. Not all theists believe God is entirely benevolent...not all believe in Heaven and Hell etc etc..

And may I add, not all 'theists' believe. I have known this entity to exist since '97, apparently, according to another atheist some time ago on this forum, that makes me gnostic.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIt is me who prove the theists are wrong and their God is an impossibility.

God is only an impossibility by the attributes that you have defined to it.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Not all theists believe God is omniscient and omnipotent. Not all theists believe God is entirely benevolent...not all believe in Heaven and Hell etc etc..

And may I add, not all 'theists' believe. I have known this entity to exist since '97, apparently, according to another atheist some time ago on this forum, that makes me gnostic.

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 am2. I have not analyzed the Bible. However one can gather from the main intent of Christians re the Bible is an eventual salvation of eternal life in a heaven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_l ... istianity)

So what?

Off topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIn the absence of the idea of eternal life, theists associate God with continual life after death as in Hinduism in general.

Interpretation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amBtw, I did not claim ALL theists yearns for an eternal life or afterlife, e.g. the later deists, pantheists, panentheists generally do not speak of such.

Who cares? This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have been TALKING about.

Btw, I am the one who raise this OP.

So what?

What are you TRYING TO imply by writing that.

ALL i have been doing is pointing out, by SHOWING, your errors and faults.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:32 amWho give a damn with all your errors and drivels in relation to the OP.

I do. Are you inferring that you do NOT like having your errors pointed out to you?

If yes, then WHY NOT?

I like to SEE and SHOW ERRORS in, so called, arguments. Especially to those who make the weirdest of ASSUMPTIONS and who obviously have the strongest of BELIEFS.

Provide an example of a, so called, error of mine, and then EXPLAIN WHY IT IS an error. Just like I have pain-painstakingly doing with just about ALL of your errors. That is the point of arguing. if you do NOT allow "others" to critique your arguments, then HOW will you EVER learn WHAT the actual TRUTH IS?

I desire and thrive on having ALL of my ERRORS pointed out to me, and then EXPLAINED WHY they are WRONG. I THRIVE from learning, so being SHOWN ALL of MY ERRORS only makes ME learn and understand MORE.

So, please go ahead POINT ALL of MY ERRORS OUT first, and then, and more importantly, please explain WHY they are errors. It would be very much appreciated if you were to do that, and I WILL thank you very much in advance, if you were to do that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:32 amMy points above, I believe strongly, is to bring your off-tangents back to base.

WHERE and WHAT are my, so called,"off-tangents" exactly?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:42 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:24 amIt is me who prove the theists are wrong and their God is an impossibility.

God is only an impossibility by the attributes that you have defined to it.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Not all theists believe God is omniscient and omnipotent. Not all theists believe God is entirely benevolent...not all believe in Heaven and Hell etc etc..

And may I add, not all 'theists' believe. I have known this entity to exist since '97, apparently, according to another atheist some time ago on this forum, that makes me gnostic.

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.