[anasawad]

I meant by this that your question is about religion not about existence of god.
@Besoeker

[Besoeker]

When you observe something countless times, all around you, and you have all your science and technology based on it.
Yea that does make them facts.

No it doesn't. I thought you might have known that.

[Besoeker]

I meant by this that your question is about religion not about existence of god.
@Besoeker

Incorrect.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
If observation, tests, expiremants, equations, etc all show something in a certain way countless times over and over everywhere doesn't make it a fact then what does ? By that logic all reality is just an illusion and there are no facts.


Yes actually your last question is a subject of religion. You moved from the existence of god to discription of god. i.e from a logical and philosophical theory to theological aspect.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
If observation, tests, expiremants, equations, etc all show something in a certain way countless times over and over everywhere doesn't make it a fact then what does ?

It makes it a robust theory.

[Besoeker]

[usermention=41506]
Yes actually your last question is a subject of religion. You moved from the existence of god to discription of god.

Quite right. About god, not religion.

[Sirius Star]

'm interested in this.

...best arugment that god doesn't exist ?

...that god does not exist...

Specifically Islamic understanding of god.

Well you are absolutely the most phenomenal. There is no mudslime extremist who does not know he still exists and that is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony exactly matches II Esdras?

'Just deserts'. It expressly said those all shall be Rachel's tents.

'Witchcraft is evil,' the dead letter had said reverse those vents.

[Sirius Star]

Quite...About god, not religion.

The supposed quiet one(s). Let's let them just come first adjust those fences. No one posts one-liners as unless they are first given those same exact rules to go issue all of those exact same followers. This is the smartest place for no rules. Those are the exact same suns the one-liners would be sending even their very own sons.

The new lands called 'New Jerusalem comes to meet the Lamb of God still in the sky not seen because it went poof in the form of a white cloud that each cloud which forms rain drops comes from another lamb's feet burnt for Islamics, Christians, faithless-Jews, all are jews, all are heretics, all have failed the full mission to just view nature as it is that God sent his own begotten son how many times?

[Sirius Star]

...fault.

external force to the universe is the principle of a source...default.

...science ?...the origins of the universe...

...existence...logic...reason.

With God, there can be no reasons. There could never be any other assortments of types of reasoning are sometimes you feel you will win by when all it ever was is sweet justice each time it sends the next newest types of measures. Tuolomne Meadows is where God sent Adam to attend to the animals. He wrote down real actual scientific facts.

The Egyptian Gods would say that weather got reckless, they know how evil stills flies, reel reality is Anubis, oh she-wood just wuved the cats, yes, animals do understand, just how all of that very exact same poison did make its rounds, that, the dogs are hounds, well gosh those are protective covers.

If the real actual origins of where God came from is that once he created the same exact same exact same universal structure of the faith element that it once said did it not that inside of Egypt it was raining dogs and cats so if the animals must be thinking that far ahead of what manna-less man still supposes male/female have shot endangered animals.

[Atlantis]

A law of nature is a scientific description of how nature works regularly and on its basic levels. Humans are mere observers in such thing not ones that shape it.

You don't know that nature or the so-called laws of nature are the same if they are not observed by humans.

In a scientific experiment, the observer is part of the experimental setup and therefore impacts on the outcome.

There are basic concipts that are facts, and proven to be facts in every possible way.
Gravity, electromagnatism, etc are examples of it.

Everything can be explained in different ways. You don't even know if radiation is a wave or a particle.

Scientific assumptions change radically between times. Scientific laws in its basic levels do not.
As scientific assumptions are based on human reasoning while the basic laws of science are based on observation.

Non-human observation or non-observation will therefore lead to different laws.

I don't believe i even tried to describe god, infact i did not even try to say anything about god's nature as no one can.

Yes, you did. You said the concept of a creator god is confirmed by what you allege to be the immutability of the so-called laws of nature.

That is the bone of contention. The truly divine requires unity of creator and creation. By splitting the one into the myriad things, you are leaving the realm of the divine and enter the temporal realm.

[Besoeker]

Gone quiet here so I'll throw this in.
I do not believe that any supernatural entities exist. No ghosts, no ghouls, no gods, no tooth fairy, no FSM, and no pink unicorn.
The why is simple. There is no testable, repeatable, objective evidence for any of them.

If you accept the possibbility that any one of them exists you cannot reasonably reject the possible existence of any of the others.

[Atlantis]

It's a fallacy to believe that god is supernatural.

[Besoeker]

It's a fallacy to believe that god is supernatural.

I don't. I'm an atheist. Think about it.

[anasawad]

What is natural ?

[Besoeker]

What is natural ?

Things resulting from nature or natural events.
This from our local big park yesterday.

[anasawad]

That is not what i meant.
Rather i mean what is the standard we use to tell natural from unnatural or supernatural or whatever ?
We surely don't know everything about nature yet to tell whats natural or not.

[Besoeker]

That is not what i meant.
Rather i mean what is the standard we use to tell natural from unnatural or supernatural or whatever ?
We surely don't know everything about nature yet to tell whats natural or not.

I agree, we don't know everything. But nature and natural events have, as I posted, solid evidence. Supernatural entities do not. As far as I am aware. That's why I don't believe that they exist.

[Atlantis]

I don't. I'm an atheist. Think about it.

That is your problem. I don't have to think about it.

To say that god does not exist is the same as saying that god does exist because the idea of existence requires the idea of non-existence.

Thus, god cannot be qualified as
- existing
- non-existing
- both existing and non-existing
- neither existing nor non-existing

Where is your god now? Speak up!

[Besoeker]

That is your problem. I don't have to think about it.

It isn't a problem. We are all born atheists.
Anyway, I was addresing your point about it being incorrect to say that god is supernatural. As an atheist, I wouldn't say god is anything. That's the point you seem to have missed.

To say that god does not exist is the same as saying that god does exist because the idea of existence requires the idea of non-existence.

Thus, god cannot be qualified as
- existing
- non-existing
- both existing and non-existing
- neither existing nor non-existing

Where is your god now? Speak up!

I didn't say god doesn't exist.

[Atlantis]

I didn't say god doesn't exist.

Atheists claim that "god does not exist."

If you claim to be an atheist, you consequently believe that "god does not exist," which is a fallacy, as I have shown previously.