God is a Fake

[vivian1003]

 

[SurveyMack10]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.
Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?

[falcon9]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.

Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing. 

Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?

Either or neither is fine, apparently.

[SurveyMack10]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.

Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing. 

Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?

Either or neither is fine, apparently.

Apparently?

[monnee]

God Bless America!!!!

[falcon9]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.

Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing. 

Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?

Either or neither is fine, apparently.

Apparently?

Too subtle, huh?

[SurveyMack10]

The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God.

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

You will not force me to say "God's existence is fact" no matter how hard you try. I am fully aware that my belief relies on faith.

Then we've come around full circle to return to the proposition that such a "belief" is implicitly either "faith" in the existence of something or, "faith" in something which has no factually-attributed evidence of existing. 

Are you wanting to continue this discussion here weeks after we have stopped or are you wanting to continue the discussion we are having on another thread?

Either or neither is fine, apparently.

Apparently?

Too subtle, huh?

Your attempt to insult rather than explain further shows insecurity. Thanks. (why you posted on this forum after weeks just to attempt to insult me shows that you have an immense amount of time on your hands that could better be directed elsewhere).

[falcon9]

Apparently?

Too subtle, huh? [/quote]

Your attempt to insult ...

That wasn't intrinsically an insult; it was a question related to your question which was 'apparently' a bit more subtle than merely answering a question with a question, (given your defensive response).

[mtmailey]

that is your opinion -people are mostly fake like the hip hoppers.

[falcon9]

that is your opinion -people are mostly fake like the hip hoppers.

The original poster, ("marieelissa"), started this thread with her opinion that "I really am realizing that God is a fake but I could create my own like a God is general that keeps everything in balance but not a personal Savior type of God", did phrase it ambiguously.  I'm curious however, about your opinion that hip hoppers are mostly fake people; are they cleverly-designed androids instead?

[ghamalian]

It doesn't matter if God is fake or real. All that matters is being a good person and believing what you want. Sure, I think God is real, but I have to accept the possibility I may be wrong and not be quick to judge others who think differently.

[falcon9]

It doesn't matter if God is fake or real. All that matters is being a good person and believing what you want. Sure, I think God is real, but I have to accept the possibility I may be wrong and not be quick to judge others who think differently.

I'd actually concur that it doesn't matter if the deity claimed to be believed in is real or not since such belief, (or even a disbelief), would have no impact on such a being's reality/existence.  That is, such a being either exists or does not and any external belief/disbelief in it is irrelavent to that condition.

[abdyer2001]

That is a question that kinda leans back to how many relegions that there are, I mean they all worship God under thier own religeous beliefs. does this mean that there are as many gods as there are relegions. Or are they all worshiping the same God.  If they are worshiping the same God, then why all of the relegions.

[falcon9]

That is a question that kinda leans back to how many relegions that there are, I mean they all worship God under thier own religeous beliefs. does this mean that there are as many gods as there are relegions. Or are they all worshiping the same God.  If they are worshiping the same God, then why all of the relegions.

On the the contrary, there have been several religions, gods and goddesses 'worshipped' throughout history and these were _not_ all the same god/deity.  Even today, there remain some extant which are distinctly not the same deity.

[abdyer2001]

one simple answer to this is that you can neither prove he exists or prove that he does not exist. it is all a matter of what you believe