Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature.

@newjaninev2 Still you have not explained where you came from ultimately, because your stock of knowledge is depleted.

@newjaninev2 Un-natural means perversion.

@yrger
Because you did not ask me.

Now, enough of your weasel terms... what exactly do you mean by 'ultimately'?

@yrger Incidentally who you think you are to call me perverted?

Unmitigated arrogance!

@newjaninev2 You’re wasting your time with this guy. He makes these pronouncements, and responds with insults if you try to engage him. I’ve had meaningful discussions with religious people, but there has to be mutual respect and genuine curiosity on their part. This guy isn’t even shallow.

@newjaninev2
Yes there is. I've proven it to you repeatedly.


You can't prove they don't exist if I've already proven they do.


Meaningless phrase.


You are willfully ignorant.

@BibleData
Humour me... do it again

@yrger
Well shit, bruh, then I'm all for the unnatural!

@BibleData When?

@CorvusBlackthorne what's the odds that this dude and op are the same person?

@BibleData
Humour me... do it again

@BibleData So anyway... as I was saying:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

@newjaninev2
Why?

@BibleData Because if you don't then you accept this to be valid:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

Personally, I'm pleased that you've accepted you're an agnostic atheist. You might need to make some corrections and changes in your future comments here, but I'd be happy to help you with that.

@newjaninev2
That's not a very good argument. In fact it isn't an argument. I've explained it to you. You deny it. Not much point in doing that again. You're problem is that you don't understand the word god.

The ancient Hebrew word El and its variations are translated as god, gods or goddesses. They are applied to men, such as Moses (Exodus 4:16 Hebrew lelohim, Greek theon, Latin Deum; Exodus 7:1 Hebrew elohim, Greek theon, Latin Deum), the Judges of Israel (Psalm 82:1, 6 Hebrew elohim, Greek theoi, Latin dii) and Jesus, prophetically at Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew El Gibbohr, Latin Deus fortis). At John 10:34-35 Jesus himself quoted Psalm 82:1, 6 confirming the prophetic and practical application of gods as men, including himself.

At Psalm 8:5 the Hebrew term beneh ha Elohim, or as the KJV reads, "sons of God" is applied to angels. Page 134 of the 1958 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner gives "(individual) divine beings, gods." Page 51 says "the (single) gods." (Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) Paul quoted Psalm 8:5 at Hebrews 2:6-8. The Hebrew word elohim is also used in the plural form. Sometimes this means multiple gods (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) but sometimes it is used as a plural of excellence in application to single gods and goddess. For example, Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5), Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7). and Marduk (Daniel 1:2)

When elohim is used with the definite article ha it refers to Jehovah exclusively. (Genesis 5:22) Similarly, the Hebrew word satan, meaning adversary; resistor; opposer, can apply to anyone acting as an adversary or resistor, but when used with the definite article ha, as in ha satan, it refers to the chief adversary of God, Satan the devil. (Job 1:6; Zechariah 3:1-2) Devil means slanderer; liar. At Numbers 22:22, 32 the Hebrew word satan is used describing an angel of Jehovah resisting, or acting as an adversary to Balaam. There are many examples of others being referred to as satan. (1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Sa 19:21, 22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25) In a similar way the contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh is "the God" from which comes Allāh.

The ancient Greek word for god is theos, from the Proto-Hellenic reconstruction of *tʰehós; Theos can be a god, God, a ruler, and when in the feminine, a goddess. It's a thematicization of the Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s which comes from a root meaning "to do, or put, to place" A thematicization is where a thematic vowel is inserted on the root or stem of the word to make it undergo a productive vocalic inflection.

A cognate is a word having the same linguistic derivation as another, from the same original word or root. For example, the English is, German ist, Latin est are from the Indo-European esti. Theos is a cognate with the Phrygian δεως (deōs, "to the gods"), Old Armenian դիք (dikʿ, "pagan gods") and Latin fēriae ("festival days"), fānum ("temple") and fēstus ("festive"). Though the Latin deus appears similar it is actually a cognate of Zeus, meaning "sky, heaven, sky god," which was applied to Zeus specifically, to other gods, and to emperors of Rome.

Words translated as god are associated with the use of pagan worship because that is how the words were used prior to Christianity; festivals, temples, pagan gods, sacrifice, libation, pouring, invocation, prayer and sky are meanings associated with worship. God is just a word, not a name. In the Classical Latin the polytheistic Romans didn't use the regularly constructed singular form of deus (*dee) because they addressed their gods individually by name. It was only in the Late Latin after Rome's conversion to monotheistic Christianity where God was used as a name, though it was never meant to be used in that way. The writers of the Bible were neither mono or polytheistic, they were henotheistic. They worshiped one supreme god but acknowledged that lesser gods existed as the examples above show.


Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Gods: In Christianity, the creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being and source of all moral authority.
One having power over nature and human fortunes. An idol or the conventional personification of fate.
An adored, admired or influential person or anything given supreme importance. Money, for example.
A god can be a gallery, that is, the upper balcony in a theater or the people seated there.

@BibleData If I might join in on this for a moment. Truth is usually defined as something that can be demonstrated as real or correct. Not simply accepted as fact. Also, it is pointless to bring up religious history, culture, text, etc. as evidence of gods, as those are clearly man made.
You need to address the existence of a supernatural, supreme being with the powers and abilities we attribute to god.
Your dialog, at best establishes a history of belief, but in no way can be viewed as evidence of such an entity actually existing . It’s simply not possible.
It could be, but not in the context here. Stay in form.

@DocSavage The argument that I'm addressing currently is the existence of gods. It doesn't matter if they are man made or not. Gods exist. No doubt about it.

@BibleData
That is the subject you’re addressing, however it’s not the subject here and now. yrger/chunkhead has made the claim that he knows god created the cosmos. He is claiming a supreme being , with powers and abilities. Self existing, permanent, etc. the context is established. We’re not looking to define the word god, we want to see the money.

@DocSavage Thanks for saving me from having to type it out... I completely concur with what you have pointed out.

it's amazing how the word 'evidence' so conveniently didn't feature in his reply.

@DocSavage I'm not responding to the OP, I'm responding to @newjaninev2 false, baseless and unsupported claim that there is no proof that gods exist. I gave various examples within the definition and history. Stones, wood, people, concepts.

@BibleData DocSavage is responding to your 'response' to me... and doing a good job of it too!
Your history lesson was irrelevant (and quite tedious)

@newjaninev2 Okay, let's go over the part you are avoiding.


Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Gods: In Christianity, the creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being and source of all moral authority.
One having power over nature and human fortunes. An idol or the conventional personification of fate.
An adored, admired or influential person or anything given supreme importance. Money, for example.
A god can be a gallery, that is, the upper balcony in a theater or the people seated there.

You said there's no proof gods exist. I've showed you that a god can be a person, an idol made of metal, wood, stone or anything given supreme importance. Money, food, etc.

I've proved gods exist because we all know those things exist.

Now you have to say something stupid with the degree of arrogance necessary to make it seem as if it were intelligent. Go ahead.

@BibleData Yes, yes, yes.... sigh! We've been over this... you claim that anything, absolutely anything, can be a god.

As I taught you then (and the lesson apparently didn't stick), if everything can be a god, then nothing is a god... because it cannot be differentiated from everything else.

If everything is urgent, then nothing is urgent.

Now, let's talk about the word you're avoiding... evidence

@newjaninev2 Evidence has very little to do with it. You haven't got to the point where you can evaluate evidence.

Saying that there is no proof of gods, or even that proof is necessary is silly. It means you don't understand the word god. It's like a Creationists saying there's no such thing as evolution because they think evolution means an ape changed into a man. Do you understand?

The only thing that makes a god a god is worship/veneration.

It isn't that everything is a god, it's that anything can be a god.

It's like love. Anything can be loved. That doesn't mean it can't be differentiated from anything else. Anything can be worshipped.

Something becomes a god when, like the Oxford definition I gave, it is given supreme importance.

Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the only theists.

A god doesn't have to literally exist to be a deity or god. Like the example given by the definition. A personification of fate. Luck. Is a god. Nor does the one who's god something is have to believe it literally exists. It's existence is not necessarily significant.

The etymology and history I gave, which you ignored, should have helped you understand all of this if your weren't being so obtuse. And what it means to you is that you probably have gods without even knowing it.

@BibleData
Read chunk head’s post. He is not worshiping anyone or anything. He is claiming that a living, sentient being literally created the cosmos and life.
Gods are mythical, he is claiming a real supernatural entity.
That is what we are discussing. He is claiming physical existence, not an object, or persona of worship. Once again, context is established in this case. It is not theoretical.