Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to I guess the battle is still on, I think
sin
is Spanish for without
posted by
QuailNest
on March 11, 2004 at 5:48 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I agree. I do not believe that we can prove there is or is not a God. In the end it all comes down to faith. And I do not see this challenge as something either side can win. But the challenge was presented to me and I do not back down from a challenge. I really do love a good debate and it sounds like Skidd is wanting to do just that. Hopefully he will have the time to present his replies to my first two points and we'll see where it goes from there.
I am going to give Skidd a chance to reply before I go on with this. My next few posts here will be different from what I have been going on about. Some of which will fit in with what you have said in fact.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 11, 2004 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Friar_Tuck
I never claimed to be everywhere and to be all powerful.
So I do not need to back up any such claim by showing it to be true.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 11, 2004 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives -- I can't help but feel that human beings are collectively
missing the point. This God that all who walk on this planet want to believe in or in some cases disprove as existing is viewed through the lenses of our simple and puny existences. Humans seem to be capable of nothing else other than defining this entity with their own limited set of parameters, from their own datum lines. Hence we are guilty of attributing to this entity nothing but what we understand while dismissing inconsistancies within the bible or in what some believe are his teachings simply by suggesting the entity itself is all powerful and relying on faith as an answer to all illogical assertions.
And there are many illogical assertions: The fact we have descended as a species through incest and inbreeding twice in the bible is almost laughable. ( Adam and Eve, The great Flood ) There are too many inconsistancies to count and certainly to list here.
Where some look for the proof of his caporial existance ( forgive me ladies for applying the masculine designation ) in acts or signs he exists such as lightning strikes or what have you, I suggest they need not look any further than the fact 90% of the inhabitants of this planet believe he exists. Think about this. How is it that we define an entity as being infallable, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful and present in everything within the universe ? A definition itself we have no hope of fully understanding, let alone figuring out how he pulls it off and then we choose to ask this omnipotent entity to act within the confines of our understanding. Just to remove our doubts of his existance.
My point is kick the notion of a God up one level to a higher plain. If one now views God as " God the Concept " instead of " God the Real Being " he does become all powerful, at least within the realities of mankind's limited ability to comprehend and perceive. The notion of evil existing also becomes easier to comprehend on a conceptual level. Whereby most evil in this world can be defined as ignorance, lack of willpower, lack of personal discipline or lust and greed as a concept evil is real to most.
The only conclusion I can draw when faced with your challenge is that the existance of God can never be proven in absolute terms nor can his non existance be proven by the same token. What I do contend is that mankind's insistance of believing in a higher power makes him real. At least as a concept. All inconsistancies aside one must at least conceed that the notion of his existance has the ability to form realities within the minds of men therefore making him real.
This I suggest is as close an answer as you will find to your challenge.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2004 at 6:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Okey...
if you exist shoot me in the next ten seconds
10..
9.
8..
7..
6..
5..
4..
3..
2..
1..
0
No one shot me.
Therefore YOU DON'T EXIST.
posted by
Friar__Tuck
on March 11, 2004 at 5:12 AM
| link to this | reply