Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Do believers in a god all have complete proofs as to why other gods are not real to not believe in them too?
If not then why should someone have a complete proof that their god is not real to not believe in it?!
Yes, all agents share one soul and operate a system similar to a lending library.
By that you mean they know it's on a shelf somewhere, but they'd rather spend their time in the kids sections browsing areas that provide some intellectual challenge instead?
I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.
All you're showing is that *if* there is a God, he certainly didn't make man in his own image. Nothing could be that dense and considered 'divine' at the same time
I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.
A flawed method of proving a negative, doesn't show you can prove a negative.
You can prove a negative if you apply contextual limitations on the required levels of proof (ie - to the limits of human knowledge, or to the boundaries of reasonable doubt), but absolute proof of a negative can never be provided as humans are not omnipresent.
Seems to me that the God of the Old Testament is anything but benevolent.
Just look what happened to Job.
Some people say "yes, but Job got back even more than he had originally", ignoring the fact that he still was visiting a graveyard full of dead relatives and friends.
You are implying we have agreed a concept of what is evil from god's perspective.
I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.
If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
There you go. It's not impossible to construct a proof that God doesn't exist. Not that this argument is definitive - philosophers and theologians have been arguing over this specific proof for centuries.
You are implying we have agreed a concept of what is evil from god's perspective.
As were Tesco profit forecasts and accounts. It makes them believable but does not make them accurate. It is not inconceivable that such accounts were derived in collusion with one another. The reason (not for the Tesco forecasts of course) may have been honorable and well intentioned but it does not make the subject any more or less real and certainly is not proof of existence.
Although, to be fair to unixman, I don't think he's suggesting that there is proof. Just evidence.
Leave a comment: