I really think what's evil was defined evil by the ex-nhilo creating God, you cannot use what he created to define it as wrong or right, he's God, he makes whatever he wants in his creation. If he demands something it's his fully right for him to do so, he created every thing. — Mutakalem

"Cannot use"? Why not, exactly? Because it seems to me we can, do, and must. Or should I suppose my most depraved and disturbed thoughts and thinking are not just gifts from God, but actually God thinking, and thus - maybe? - I should make them real?

"I really think what's evil was defined by the [from nothing] creating God." I try not not to question a person's beliefs, beyond someties asking about the sense of them. But here you say you think. What are your thoughts that lead you to your conclusion. I suspect you're trying to move from belief to reason, and without the reason that's an illegitimate, even sometimes evil, move. So how are you making it?

ridiculous excuse to try to justify your desire to be mean to people. You can be intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others. You don't care about changing his mind. You're spitting words for the fullfillment of your ego. People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people.

You did not talk with the man. You talked at the man, while completing disregarding his OP. You fool no one with this excuse. And if you've fooled yourself? Then you are far less intelligent then you believe yourself to be. — Philosophim

Yep. Nothing new under the sun there!!

Unfortunately yet another angry atheist on the warpath... . I still can't figure out why they're so angry about no-God ... LOL

Hey dingbat. Encourage more supernatural abstractors like Mutakalem will you, so we can have more important threads like this. Know your enemy friend, and don't encourage their stupidity or propaganda. I blame you for the existence of this thread. You are responsible. And what exactly are you responsible for, authoritarian, fascist nonsense like this: — JerseyFlight

Yo dude, have you thought about an anger management course? Or maybe it's that whole New Jersey Guido thing relative to your ego that philosophim talked about...

angry atheist — 3017amen

Indeed. I am upset when people attempt to indoctrinate my species with error and lies. You come at me with authoritarian assertions regarding your tyrannical God. You want to pass off fairly-tale nonsense for intelligence and wisdom. You try to uphold an archaic tradition that is responsible for some of the worst acts ever committed against humans, I do indeed have a righteous anger. I am not your friend, just like you and your kind are not the friend of my species. You are not liberators but oppressors. Your power has been curbed, that is all, the same tyranny exists, but it has been restricted and put in check by secularism. You can claim no virtue here, the virtue belongs to Humanism.

You try to uphold an archaic tradition that is responsible for some of the worst acts ever committed against humans, I — JerseyFlight

Well that archaic tradition is the same tradition that you seem to use, in this case: deductive logic.

Furthermore, just because you had some bad experiences that you can't resolve don't project your anger onto other people.

Well that archaic tradition is the same tradition that you seem to use, in this case, deductive logic. — 3017amen

Excuse me, did you just try to claim that your Jesus Cult is responsible for deductive logic??????????

Excuse me, did you just try to claim that your Jesus Cult is responsible for deductive logic??????????
now — JerseyFlight

No, I'm claiming that you use deduction for your belief in no God.

No, I'm claiming that you use deduction for your belief in no God. — 3017amen

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? I didn't quite catch that deductive part.

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? I didn't quite catch that deductive part. — JerseyFlight

You attacked deductive reasoning from the OP, yet it appears to be the same reasoning you use for your belief in no God.

belief in no God. — 3017amen

If I have a lack of belief in God it will be based most of all on a lack of evidence in relation to the projection of the idea. You have already said that Jesus is God. This makes you part of the Jesus cult. I asked you how you knew this and you gave vague answers to avoid shouldering your burden of proof. It's a mighty claim to say that you know Jesus is God. Explain it to the court or leave the room.

But you're using deductive logic to determine your 'lack of evidence' belief system. And if I'm correct, you are no better or worse than the theist.

So you just seem to be projecting anger from some unresolved psychological deficiency. (I'm afraid I'm not the only one who sees it.)

I will repeat myself: It's a mighty claim to say that you know Jesus is God. Explain it to the court or leave the room.

Yep correct

Yep correct — 3017amen

I am indeed, but we already knew that from the beginning. It's always been the reason for your evasion.

am indeed, but we already knew that from the beginning. It's always been the reason for your evasion.
now — JerseyFlight

Not following that. I thought I already answered your question, no?

So you just seem to be projecting anger from some unresolved psychological deficiency. — 3017amen

This is properly known as gaslighting, it's a technique of manipulation that is employed by abusers. And since you're a zealot of the Jesus cult this doesn't surprise me one bit. An analogy to it would be if someone defected from North Korea and had a legitimate and justified anger against the oppression of the regime. People like you come along and claim that this anger is actually a "psychological deficiency." This is quite a serious manifestation of malevolence on your part, but it is no surprise because your psychological need to protect your delusion is even greater. There is no level to which the Christian will not stoop, from burning people at the stake to torturing heretics. This is your history and you are true to it.

Gosh please don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you're talking about yourself. No matter, let's go ahead and put your money where your mouth is and parse the following a priori statements:

1. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else?

2. Jesus had a consciousness that in itself transcends logic. True false or something else?

Since you seem to be hell-bent on embracing a priori reasoning, tell us what's wrong with those statements or judgements.

God is time dependent and timeless. — 3017amen

This depends on what you mean by God? It also depends on how you go about trying to deduce him.

Suppose you want to claim that something had to cause the big bang. Fine and well, I shall let you have it. Now tell me what you know about this cause? Do you know that it was Jesus? Do you know that it is still in existence? Do you know that it was only one agent that caused such vast complexity? I mean, that would completely contradict what we know about complex structures created by agency.

Listen, abuser, progeny of those who burned women as witches, I will not play your games. Prove your case or leave the court with your sophistry.

This depends on what you mean by God? It also depends on how you go about trying to deduce him. — JerseyFlight

Unfortunately, I'm still not following your logic .

First you evaded the questions with questions so that tells us something right there.

Second it sounds like you're more of an agnostic than an atheist because if I'm reading between the tea leaves...you don't seem to even know what logic you based your Atheism on... . In other words, what level of understanding do you base your believe in no-God?

So right now, this is actually worse than I thought because it sounds like you are some sort of an in- the-closet agnostic.

First you evaded the questions with questions so that tells us something right there. — 3017amen

No. You asked loaded questions: that tells us everything.

"A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial assumption. Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda."

Such as, 'God is time dependent and timeless, true or false or something else?' Here the loaded term is the term "God."

Gotcha indeed you're on a fishing expedition!
LOL

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? Of course silly.

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? Of course silly. — JerseyFlight

I'm not sure your fellow atheist's would approve of your behavior :chin:

Idea of "God" isn't even omnipotent, because it only creates paradoxes, and paradoxes are just meaningless arguments. — batsushi7

Depends on your definition of omnipotence or whether you happen to think that any and all definitions of omnipotence require the possibility of performing actions which are not allowable among classical forms of logic or lead to paradoxical actions. Many theists and theistic philosophers i'm willing to assume don't all just assume that such a being must be able to perform contradictory actions as they probably define omnipotence in a rather different but precise manner to avoid these paradoxical situations.

God can not be omnipotence, — batsushi7

True, because omnipotence is a concept of being intuitively all powerful or the most powerful. A god can be omnipotent however.

If "God" Was truly omnipotence, he would understand our pain and suffering, and would fix the world, cure poverty, suffer, and every problem in this world, not in afterlife! Perhaps he cant do it in this life, because he isn't omnipotent. Honestly i think God doesn't even know that Africa exists. — batsushi7

This rests on the fact that you assume that god even abides by or holds any morality at all let alone any moral duties or positions that humans likewise would hold. This is the problem of evil which ONLY applies in situations when god is considered to be capable of preventing evil and also possessing a sense of moral convictions or by nature omni-benevolence that is similar to human moral qualms such that it creates an apparent contradiction. There is evil in the world and god is capable as well as willing to rid the world of such sorrows but he does not, why?

1) I mean by possible essence is that anything that can rationally exist (Its possibility in existing in any possible world doesn't make any logical contradictions). — Mutakalem

Those are conceptual possibilities not what is actual and what is metaphysically possible. These are concepts from the actual world that you have decided to abstract from and find consistent with classical logic but whether these conceptually possible worlds can actually come about is something not exactly clear. Is it possible for any other conceptually possible world to come about other than ours?