One will not see evidence of God nor can I prove there is one. By the same token you cannot prove there is NOT a God.
You cannot use human rational thought in order to categorize God to fit your way of thinking. God exceeds human references; particularly emotions.
As to God making sense to you, only goes to prove the point you really do not understand life and why we are here.
13 comments
As to God making sense to you, only goes to prove the point you really do not understand life and why we are here.
Nor do you.
"Whatever the Church holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality, the evidence of God, except by looking through the eyes of the Church. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become godly."
One will not see evidence of God nor can I prove there is one.
Ah, good to know that we agree that there is no reason to believe in a god, then. Oh wait, you do, though...
By the same token you cannot prove there is NOT a God.
Indeed not, we cannot. However, we are not required to prove it: only the one claiming the existence of anything is required to give proof of it. The default position on any problem should be exactly that: it does not exist, unless proven otherwise.
"One will not see evidence of God nor can I prove there is one."
"God exceeds human references; particularly emotions."
How do you know this to be true? Prove THAT, since you feel confident in saying it is a fact.
"One will not see evidence of God nor can I prove there is one."
Then why believe there is one?
"By the same token you cannot prove there is NOT a God."
You seem to be having a bit of trouble with the concept of burden of proof.
"You cannot use human rational thought in order to categorize God..."
Well, we don't have anything else to work with. We are humans. We think about things in human terms.
"As to God making sense to you, only goes to prove the point you really do not understand life and why we are here."
One would think that some omniscient, omnipotent being would be capable of explaining itself in a way that makes sense. And an omnibenevolent would wish to do so.
I don't have to prove anything about an invisible friend. I'm an atheist. We don't go door to door distributing blank pamphlets and trying to convert people to atheism. I understand life and "why we are here", but I do not understand the widespread delusion that some entity outside of this earth cares what happens to any of us.
One will not see evidence of God nor can I prove there is one. By the same token you cannot prove there is NOT a God.
One will not see evidence that I know the lottery numbers for a drawing in 2041, nor can I prove that I know the lottery numbers for a drawing in 2041. By the same token you cannot prove that I do NOT know the lottery numbers for a drawing in 2041.
So get down and pray to my knowledge.
image
I am an Alicorn
I'm a starI'm a god Of my majesty none can deny
Don't make me get out my Flying Spaghetti Monster, JR 'Bob' Dobbs, Eris, Cthulhu, Invisible Pink Unicorn , Haruhi Suzumiya, Ceiling Cat...! [/'Teach the Controversy']
Princess Celestia. Amaterasu/Kwannon. Amun-Ra/The 'Aten'. You'll recognise the latter, OP. Of course you do: the invention of Akhenaten.
The pioneer of Mono theism.
Argue against his 'Light of the World', it brings into serious question the existence of yours . Who are you to say that your particular deity wasn't purely the invention of Bronze Age goatfuckers with ideas above their stations: whilst off their tits on industrial-strength hallucinogens? Revelation in your great work of fiction : the BuyBull. Q. E. and fucking D.
At least we can see Princess Celestia. /)^3^(\
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
