Why God can´t exist.

If God includes all there is, can a perfect being contain imperfect parts? IMHO, you need to define perfection.

All these arguments revolve around the definitions of words like ‘perfect’, ‘omnipotent’, ‘omniscient’. Basically, they are just linguistic games. There is nothing practical, useful or even interesting in the arguments or the conclusions.

The calculation of how many angels fit on the head of a pin depends entirely on how you define the size of the head and the size of an angel. Both definitions are pulled out of …

Oh boy! That’s a claim! So are you saying people encountered Zeus so Zeus is real? History and mythology teach that people pretend gods … even primitive hunter gathering tribes pretended gods.

Are you saying all the gods ever thought of are real?

History did not “reveal” that. You presumed that.

Again, what makes something a god or not?
Without knowing that one question, how can you presume to know if anything is or isn’t, was or wasn’t a god?

Well you did tell him how he should spend his time, to other than God not existing.

Didn’t you tell him he should spend his time thinking? lol

St. James, I like your posts. Let’s see how Zac holds up under pressure.

Okay Mr. persnickety, history teaches nothing … so I’ll go with mythology … just for you …

And I don’t know how the watch works but I can tell time … and I know a god when I see one, and so do you.

No, I pretty certain that you don’t.

Prove it …

Isn’t the burden of proof on you since you claim to ‘know a god when you see one’?

And if you saw a watch from another planet, you probably would not be able to tell time with it.

One only knows what one has been taught to know or what one has directly experienced. If you were taught wrong or you haven’t experienced god then you would not know one even if it bit you.

No, St. James claims I don’t know a god when I see one, and that is what he needs to prove.

And for those that have problems spotting gods, you can start here :
http://www.theoi.com/Tree.html

So if God isn’t listed on that web site, either It/He/She does not exist or you would not recognize It/Her/Him. Right?

I dont think all of reality is made by or controlled by gods, but higher beings exist. The chances of higher beings existing is very high due to how big reality is.

“God can’t exist” is like saying coffee can’t exist. Why? Because I said so?
The limits of reality are mostly unknown to us.
You’d need to know the limits of reality before you could know whether or not a super being god figure could exist.
There’s allot of energy out there. Allot. Some of it may be sentient. Maybe a large amount. Who knows?

Haha… :unamused:

Remember that thing about extraordinary claims holding the greater burden of proof?

You say that you can recognize something called a god, yet don’t know what a god is.
I would say that is a pretty extraordinary claim requiring some serious evidence.

I claim that you cannot recognize a god BECAUSE you don’t know what one is.
I think that is not a very extraordinary claim that would take very little evidence.

As far as your list of god names and images; what does that have to do with anything?
The names and representations for the gods had nothing to do with what they looked like except by metaphor.
A god is invisible.

But for you to know that, you might need to know what a god is because regardless of what looks like a dog with wings and a bird’s face, for it to be a god, there are other requirements, else I can create a god any time out of clay and paint.

Bro James, your are just nitpicking fer the fun of it. According to you gods are invisible, which proves Zacar that, God doesn’t exist. So we pretend gods exist. Do you have a problem with pretending bro James, like Zacar, who obviously doesn’t want to play the pretend game concerning god?

He plays a different pretend game… let’s pretend that god is perfect … I define perfect thus … god can’t exist.

You play another pretend game … let’s pretend that god is defined by this cult … this cult screwed me … god doesn’t exist.

If and when I ever do that, I will make it more than obvious…even to you.

Huh? Something invisible necessarily doesn’t exist to Zacar?
I must have missed that syllogism.
And how do you know what proves anything to Zacar?

Not “we”, “you”.

Yes, I have a problem with pretending.
Don’t make that a problem with you.

St. James Zacar made this thread about god not existing. He wants to talk about that. Are you trying to make it about god existing? Or are you just trying to obscure his thread?

I know you are bright enough to add to the point of his thread, without your own bias clogging it up.

I think he is holding up pretty good, by the grace of God. Etilology, referentiality (referring to some thing rather than to some one),breakthroughs can not be but both: evaluation, + an ontological question, and precisely because back then–it wasn’t called a theory of any kind (unified or fragmented), but for lack of another word “spirit”.

Tv ministry does some good, and if you give some contribution, it will make you feel better about yourself. Even regular churches have collections, and no one says that it’s like paying admission to a cinema or theatre.

Finally, jesus loved children. Why? Because they were not cynical, and saw the emperor for what he was -with no clothes on. (Let Ceasar have his…and God-His.)

Does god exist, or not,is not the question. What does is the word, being able to be carried forward through the portals of time, giving meaning, toward its intended goal:( the voice of the writer of this blog, who has total sincerity on his side, making it clear,)—the need to know god.

Metaphysics has been said to be “sewn up” and the limits and frontiers in this regard(god’s supposed existence/non existence) pretty much seen as a violation of the rules of language.

So, why not define God for the sceptics as beyond existence (remember even avicenna described reality as a combination of existence, being, and essence) , hence beyond description.

By description, meaning, the evolution of the figurative use of language, versus “THE WORD”, of Who’s referentiality we may not even guess at.

Perhaps zac tries to interpret god apart from the Word, by using an “evolved” representation. Who is to say that even if, we speak of evolution, we may be partial of it’s aims toward the changing representation the word-implies-(-which may very well be, a devolution, )–corresponding to an evolution of analysis(a psychological/philosophical distinction?)

Who is to ascribe more value to the philosophy of language (meaning) than to it’s analysis (psychology)

The only solution is the synthesis, the re-integration of both types of understanding. Kant is alive and well!

Perhaps you’ve hit on why we pretend god. Because god is so far beyond us that we’re left with only our imagination to define He/She/It/They. And why all depictions and definitions of God fall short.