Of gods and the stupid


My friend SB has a good post, respecting reasonable certainty. I have no disagreements with him at all.

One of the goddites, Seth, writes in one of his comments

You are citing alleged actions of the Christian God — I was referring to His necessary qualities, e.g. immaterial, timeless, space-less, etc, which I believe are necessary qualities that would have to apply to any entity capable of creating the universe. What objective evidence would we expect from a being with these attributes?

And my first thought was, what the fuck do people smoke! Why do apologists regurgitate this nonsense of space-less, timeless and immaterial but he can create? Where do they get this idea from? Since I have other hobbies, has anyone of you who reads the bible met this description of god. I wanna know how a space-less and timeless god would be bothered about what animals should be sacrificed, how and by whom? How does one, whose belief in god is based on a book of myth, write the above and think they have contributed to a rational debate? Do they read these comments aloud to themselves and others near them?

And then he says

As for one valid bit of evidence… Not to put words in your mouth, but when legitimate, historical evidence is brought up that seems strongly to suggest that Christ rose from the dead, the fall-back position seems to be to discount the conclusion that the evidence suggests because the conclusion doesn’t line up with the naturalist’s assumptions about the universe; i.e., “We have no way to tell if it was really a miracle, hang what the evidence says.” It’s a no-win situation, and I’m skeptical of methodologies that essentially guarantee certain conclusions before any evidence is even looked at.

And yours truly wants to see this legitimate historical evidence. I want to see it, look at it for myself and decide on whether it is acceptable to me.

And this is true;

just because someone attributes an experience to God does not mean their attribution is correct — tildeb has pointed this out to me ad infinitum😉 If that’s true, then all sorts of things that seem contradictory about peoples’ experiences with God may not even be God at all. If my personal experience doesn’t count as positive evidence of God’s existence, then others’ should be counted as negative evidence against His existence either.

But I will add here that theist is pushing the evidence when they claim the experience is of god. The experience whatever they are cannot be of god, but are attributed to being experiences of god. Other godless people have similar experiences as those described by goddites but attribute them to either being high, fatigued or some other natural explanation. To therefore claim the goddite has some special connection to a timeless, boundless and immaterial existence is to push the limits of our possible experience out of the bounds of reason.

And he wants to have the deck stacked in his favour even before the discussion begins. He writes

I think making certain assumptions about God, at least for the sake of argument, is a very useful way to test the efficacy of a methodology’s ability to say anything definitive about Him. If you can, as I’m challenging you to do, start with the premise that God does exist, deduce from that certain objective evidences that would necessarily follow from those assumptions being true, and demonstrate that such evidences do not exist, then I think you’ve made a valid case against the likelihood of God existing.

And how is SB to do this? He has no belief in deities. What assumptions would he be making about it? It would be reasonable by first telling SB and the rest of us what god is. I do think if this is done coherently, the need for assumptions about god would disappear.

And to the stupid. I hope that link and the people who have commented on it are all kidding. That it is satire and everyone is roped in. Can people be so stupid? Is there any helping them?

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

107 thoughts on “Of gods and the stupid

  1. when a theist claims their god is timeless, immaterial, “space-less” (whatever that means), I do wonder how this god is expected to interact with the universe we see. If it is “timeless”, how does it figure out when to act? indeed, how can cause/effect work with such a being? If it is immaterial, it again is stuck with being unable to do anything in this universe. John Zande’s book does a great job of showing how ridiculous the usual claims about an Omni-max being are.

    “certain objective evidences that would necessarily follow from those assumptions being true”
    what would these “evidences” be?

    As for some Americans thinking that President Obama is the “anti-Christ”, oy. Quite an example of how religion depends on fear and ignorance; the claims of the bigotted special snowflakes who want to believe that they won’t have to die and their imaginary friend will punish those who know that their claims are false.

    Like

  2. The Obama stats are most likely very accurate. 1 in 4 believe he’s the anit-christ. I live in a very backward, archaic, primitive-thinking country. Giving that we have the power to annihilate the planet with the press of a button, this should scare the fuck out of the rest of the world. Goddites are truly a sorry lot, in a timeless, immaterial way.

    Like

  3. Peter says:

    The fact Christians spend so much time arguing with each other, yet all claim to be guided by ‘God’ is actually categorical proof that not all of them are correct. The real question is whether any of them are correct?

    People who claim to have been abducted by aliens are certain of their experience, yet we discount it because there is no proof. Should the claim of religious experience be treated any differently?

    Most critically why should we treat the followers of any religious tradition with any more respect than those adherents treat followers of other religions?

    Like

  4. Seth Scott says:

    Why do apologists regurgitate this nonsense of space-less, timeless and immaterial but he can create?

    Because if He wasn’t these things, then He couldn’t create, because His existence would be predicated upon that which He created. If the FSM were said to have created all the spaghetti in the world, and yet is himself made of spaghetti… you can see the problem 🙂

    Like

    • tildeb says:

      This gobbledygook comment, Seth, only makes sense if and only if your god is a real interactive creating agency. It is you who has then qualified these necessary properties with the incompatible idea of a boundless, timeless, immaterial thing you call God. You can’t have it both ways and think the idea remains rational and comprehensible. It’s not. It’s the kind of mental gymnastics needed to make the incompatible seem compatible… through word games.

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        you know mate, no raw materials are required to create a god. Ignorance, fear and sickly imagination are sifficient

        Like

        • The ability to weave rhetoric into indecipherable, bloated, self-important sounding, gibberish are helpful things for the theist to have. In particular, they’re helpful to the christian whose god is fake. for there can be no God but Allah, as the Qur’an tells us: 2:120: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, Islâmic Guidance is the only Guidance. And if you were to follow their desires after what you have received of Knowledge, then you would have against Allâh neither any protector nor helper.”
          Every ridiculous argument the infidel christian makes in favor of his false, lie of a god applies to Allah and only to Allah. On the day of atonement, when Allah tosses the lying christians into the flames of Hell to burn for their lies and their inability to use REASON to see the TRUTH of The Qu’ran, they will beg for a forgiveness which shall not be given them. ( See what I mean about my first point?) $Amen$

          Like

    • makagutu says:

      I accept the charge of hater.
      I think you might actually be dumber than I thought. You believe in a god whose proof is a book. The things you claim as the nature of this god are properties given it by pseudo-philosophers who were rational, wanted to continue to believe in a god but found the book god too stupid and contradictory to believe in.

      Like

      • Seth Scott says:

        You believe in a god whose proof is a book.

        Nope. But you’re probably right about my intelligence 😉

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          So you don’t believe in the gods whose stories are told in the bible? Are you a christian? Maybe I was presumptuous

          Like

          • Seth Scott says:

            Sure, I’m a Christian — but I don’t believe my holy book is proof that God exists. I’ll leave that to the Muslims.

            Like

          • Gotta love the believers in the One True God: From the Qur’an: 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”

            Since the christian is incapable of REASON and research and understanding truth, he is condemned to Hell. His arrogant belief that he is not in no way changes this reality. In fact, the greater his denial, the greater intensity of pain he shall suffer in Hell for all eternity. I know this because Allah is a timeless, boundless, immaterial Truth that hates blasphemers, liars, and poo-poo faces, equally. (I kinda like poo-poo faces myself, but hey, I gotta do what Allah says, so I’m forced to hate ’em, too).

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            if Allah hates them, I don’t think you can do otherwise than hate them

            Like

          • True. That’s the thing with immaterial, timeless, boundless guys. Ya’ gotta do what they want, OR ELSE!!!!!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            don’t finish that statement. I shudder

            Like

    • I can see the problem with your baseless claims. There is nothing that indicates the qualities you claim would allow any entity to create anything. You have declared this cause/effect with nothing to support it.

      As I have stated earlier “when a theist claims their god is timeless, immaterial, “space-less” (whatever that means), I do wonder how this god is expected to interact with the universe we see. If it is “timeless”, how does it figure out when to act? indeed, how can cause/effect work with such a being? If it is immaterial, it again is stuck with being unable to do anything in this universe.”

      “certain objective evidences that would necessarily follow from those assumptions being true”
      what would these “evidences” be?

      Like

      • Seth Scott says:

        That was actually the question I posed, with the tacit implication that perhaps we can’t expect any — unless, of course, the universe itself counts as evidence, which I believe it does. If everything boils down to natural processes, then “it’s turtles all the way down,” so to speak — it’s obviously absurd when we talk about turtles, but I don’t see much difference when we replace turtles with “natural processes.” If the buck doesn’t stop somewhere (i.e. with a creative agency that is not bound by space, time and matter), then the only logical conclusion is that nothing could ever exist, because there would be nothing to kick-start the process.

        Like

        • tildeb says:

          Where the buck stops, Seth, is where we recognize we have no knowledge. Regarding the universe, that point is the Big Bang. Beyond that, you have nothing but meaningless drivel about forces of Oogity Boogity exercising POOF!ism. The better ‘explanation’ at this point is to freely and honestly admit “I don’t know” rather than start inserting your imaginings that have no value in meaning. “I don’t know” is the starting point for honest inquiry and it’s not a black mark against one’s character to admit as much. Because all the evidence we do have reveals natural, impersonal, indifferent physical processes that can be demonstrated, it is unreasonable to jump away from this well-established understanding and start inserting superstitious nonsense as the religious are prone to do in favour not of gods they don’t like but for those they do. This biased attribution is so transparent to reasonable people that they reject all gods… save the one some people privilege for reasons other than what’s reasonable and honest. That’s where your boundless, timeless, immaterial meaningless conjecture comes from: your bias. It does not come from the reality we share.

          Like

        • we can’t expect any? Then why did your god supposedly do all of these big magical things in the bible? or perhaps is the bible not to be believed either, if we “can’t expect any”?

          Most, if not all, theists claim that the universe was created by their god. So, where’s the evidence that your god created the universe, Seth? And how can you show that no other god did it?

          There’s nothing absurd about natural laws being just as possibly “eternal” as your god. You just don’t like it. If we say it’s magical god all the way down, a god that has no evidence to support it, then it’s just as “ridiculous”.

          Again, Seth, you offer a false dichotomy. You want it to be either your god or nothing, and have nothing to support that. There is no need for a god to “kick-start” anything. If your god didn’t need a “kick” no reason that natural laws did either.

          You are of course welcome to present your evidence. I suspect you will come up with a lovely excuse.

          Like

          • The excuse of the christian, the real excuse, is that the christian god is a total lie created by the evil, blasphemous Paul. Here is proof:
            “…now that a Book confirming their own has come to them from God, they deny it…they reply: ‘We believe in what was revealed to us.’ But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is truth…Say: ‘Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel’ (who has by God’s grace revealed to you [Muhammad] the Koran as a guide…confirming previous scriptures)..will surely find that God is the enemy of the unbelievers.’…And now that an apostle has come to them from God confirming their own Scriptures, some of those to whom the Scriptures were given cast off the Book of God behind their backs…The unbelievers among the People of the Book, and the pagans, resent that any blessings should have been sent down to you from your Lord. ” (Surah 2:88-, 98-, 103-)
            Christians, though they will deny this unto death, are idiots. They lack the ability to REASON and do REAL research into the reality of the timeless, immaterial, space-less being that is Allah. The Christian is the vilest form of evil that has ever existed. They’ve been lead by Satan into a false belief that will only lead them to Hell. Christians are too stupid and arrogant to admit the Hell that awaits their lying, evil lies. Their flesh shall bubble and pop from their bones as they suffer forever in Hell for their lies. Their denying this makes it no more less true. Christians, fuck you all.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Haha. Christians should read the Koran

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            We will not accept excuses for evidence.
            If his god did all the things we have been told about it, coming to say hello club, hello Mak, here I am, the I am. We will just say oh well, now we know. Whether we start to worship is a different case altogether

            Like

          • indeed. one wonders where the evidence is for all of the Doubting Thomas’s in the world. If we are to accept the bible’s claims, then it is not wrong to ask for evidence, for even JC himself gave it.

            Christians, like Seth, find themselves disputing their bible with their claims that we can’t “expect” evidence. This is the creep of reality that always alters religion. It is never the other way around.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            All they keep saying is they have evidence. Ask for the evidence, it’s nowhere to be found

            Like

          • indeed. I was reading Seth’s blog and it’s hilarious on how much he insists he has evidence and how much he can’t provide this evidence.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I think there is a disconnect somewhere between his having evidence and him providing the given evidence

            Like

          • Seth Scott says:

            Hello Club 🙂 This discussion has dealt with evidences on two fronts: evidences that directly support God’s existence, and evidences of God’s workings in our universe. They are separate things, and I’m pointing out that there are difficulties with both.

            As for the former, this is the kind of evidence I am asserting we cannot expect, given God’s immaterial nature. What kind of direct evidence can we expect regarding the existence of such an entity? So far, the challenge has gone unanswered — I for one can’t think of anything we can expect in this respect.

            As for the latter (i.e. circumstantial evidence, about which SB recently wrote a great piece), I agree that these sorts of evidences should be expected — however, there’s still wiggle-room here, because (as tildeb has pointed out) it becomes difficult to attribute such events to the work of a deity, even if there were ample evidence for the event itself. Despite the common claims that go along the line of “There are no evidences for such things,” I believe that there are evidences that the miraculous (or, at least, the anomalous) can and does occur — but, there’s still no airtight case for divine agency, because there’s no definitive way to prove a connection between the anomalous event and the alleged divine agent.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            If i read you correctly, you are saying either way there is no evidence for deity. Besides I think you are putting the horse before the cart. What is god? That is the first question that should be answered

            Like

          • Well, Seth, you have yet to provide evidence for your version of the Christian God’s existence and evidence for your version of the Christian God’s working in the universe. I’ve been reading your blog and it’s just hilarious how you prate on and on about evidence but actually can’t provide any for your version of the Christian god. Your blog is a wonderful example of how religion relies on smoke and mirrors, and not facts at all.

            You use arguments that are baseless and you can’t even explain what “spaceless” even means. For all of your running to the supposed logical arguments for a god, you have yet to support your claims and you have yet to show that only your god can be supported by the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc. Those arguments are always funny since you cannot show that there needs to be a first cause, that it is your god or that simply physical laws can’t be uncaused, that they just are, as you claim your god is. You also can’t show that your god fulfills the idea of an ultimate good, since anyone can always postulate a god better than yours is, no matter how much you try to alter the description of it. All of this whining that logical arguments are valid, but when you don’t like logic, you just ignore it. Oh, my god is timeless, but if it isn’t logical for a timeless god to work within time, logic goes out the window. You’ll just make nonsense up and do your best to ignore questions. Alas for you, it’s very easy to document just want you and other Christians do in a written medium.

            We have you insisting that your god is timeless, but of course you can’t show that anything “timeless” could possibly interact with time. You claim that it is “spaceless” but you can’t even explain what the heck that means. You cannot show your god created anything, or that timelessness and “spacelessness’ is somehow magically required for creation. You seem to think that we are just the choir and we’ll blindly accept the lies and baseless claims that you repeat. And you of course cannot show that your god is the right one, and that Vishnu, and al of the other creator gods aren’t real. Your claims rely on claims of personal incredulity, just like every other theists, and every other theist uses the same arguments you do for “proving” the existence of their god. Just like you, they can’t show that any of the supposed actions of their god and events in their holy books every happened. So, no evidence can be provided by you or them. Atheists doubt you for the same reasons you doubt everyone else.

            You now want to claim that we now can’t expect evidence. That’s just lovely when you are destroying your fellow Christians claims of evidence. Which TrueChristian do we believe, Seth? Indeed, if you are to be believed, our eternal souls ride on this. So, how can we tell who is lying?

            You even gainsay your holy book, in your desperation to explain why your god is either impotent or imaginary. Funny how this now “immaterial” God supposedly did all sorts of things in the bible that says your new claims are completely wrong and blasphemous. It’s great to watch you now say that your bible is lying when it claims that this god *did* do things that an “immaterial” god supposedly can’t do, per your excuses. All of those claim, God chatting up Abraham and Moses, God directly interfering with humanity, all are evidently lies per your newly ginned-up excuse. You’ve just redefined your god so you can give excuses why this god does nothing, just like an imaginary being would do.

            Again, Seth, if this god created the universe, show that it and only it did. If this god created man, show thatit and only it did. If this god caused a magical flood, then show evidence. If this god interfered in Egypt, show evidence. Again, you won’t even give a date of when these supposed events happened. Christians can’t agree on when they happened. You refuse to give such information because if you actually set a date, then we could go look right there and shucks if we wouldn’t find a singular lack of any evidence at all for the claims of Jews and Christians and that would certainly make your religion rather silly.

            Again, you make claim there is evidence and SURPRISE! You can’t provide it again. Lots and lots of claims that you have a dragon in your garage and not one scrap of evidence that you do. You try to move the goalposts again by now claiming that there is magically a difference between direct evidence of your god’s existence and evidence of your god’s workings in the universe. Nope, Seth, the evidence that shows your god exists is the same as the evidence for its supposed workings in the universe. Both don’t exist. You have nothing, but more and more attempts at making your god more and more vague, changing its attributes, etc, all in your attempt to cling to the concept that you are a special snowflake that knows more than anyone else, that a magical being agrees with you and only you.

            One more time, where is this evidence for this that you claim: “I believe that there are evidences that the miraculous (or, at least, the anomalous) can and does occur — but, there’s still no airtight case for divine agency, because there’s no definitive way to prove a connection between the anomalous event and the alleged divine agent.” Again, you claim your god exists and that no others do, show evidence.

            Like

      • makagutu says:

        That evidence you are asking for, should it be availed, let me know

        Like

  5. ejwinner says:

    “(…) start with the premise that God does exist, deduce from that certain objective evidences that would necessarily follow from those assumptions being true” – transporting me to the mansion he has created for me in the Caribbean, then visiting me for a chat (face to face, none of that burning bush nonsense!). And of course a car. As the great prophetess Janice promiseth us in her homily on divine love, “Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.” Halleluiah, she has risen!

    Like

  6. If something is timeless and spaceless it doesn’t exist.

    Like

    • It does if it’s Allah, The One True God. There isn’t room in a timeless, immaterial, space-less whatever for more than Allah. He takes up all the space-less-ness there is in an immaterial, timeless, boundless kinda way. See? 😀

      Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      you could define one into existence

      Like

      • Could certainly try but it would likely be meaningless without space or time. You’d have to define what such a state would even look like or be like just for starters.

        Like

      • Basically, you’d have to define something that lives at nowhere at no time.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          They have been doing that for eons now, perfected the art

          Like

        • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

          Christians say god lives everywhere at all times. How that fits into a timeless/spaceless/immaterial theory, I’m not quite sure. Perhaps I just lack imagination (a common problem among atheists). 😉

          Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Have you been reading comments from SOM. He said John lacks imagination or rather atheists are devoid of imagination

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            I avoid SOM at all costs. I just figured all christians think we lack imagination (ie: craziness).

            Like

          • We lack imagination because we’re not connected to the timeless, space-less, boundless, immaterial christian god, which, by the way, has a pee-pee and is male. How christians can know that a timeless, space-less, immaterial whatever could have a pee-pee and be christian and not say, Hindu and female, is beyond our imaginations to conceive. Thus, to the christian, we are poo-poo heads without imagination. I don’t know bout you, but I couldn’t be happier I lack the imagination of christians. I think they’re rather psychotic meself.

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Unfortunately I had an ABUNDANCE of imagination until just recently. Now I’ve been learning about skepticism…which oddly enough, is not taught in church. It’s had a rather devastating effect on my imagination, and to that I say $Amen$.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I think you have become more imaginative

            Liked by 1 person

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Thank you! I dare say the crispyans would vehemently disagree.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            their say doesn’t count for much on this blog

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Timeless, boundless, spaceless but died on a cross to save us from itself? You are right Jeff, they are psychotic if not idiotic

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You do yourself well. How JZ and VW manage to tolerate him is beyond me

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Who is JZ? I already familiar with ms. wisp.

            Like

          • John Zande. His blog is great, for a guy with no imagination. Damn atheist bastard.

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Oh of course…I’ve been to John’s site many times and am considering buying his book.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            you should buy it. your imagination will be damaged two-fold

            Liked by 1 person

          • You should. It’s damn good considering it was written by an atheist without the slightest bit of imagination. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to a timeless, space-less, immaterial realm to go number 2. $Amen$

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            for a guy with no imagination, he writes so well

            Like

          • Funny how he’s able to do that, eh?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t know how, without imagination, he can write so well

            Like

          • Peter says:

            What I have never understood is the argument that unlike God the Devil is not everywhere and all knowing. Yet the comments by many Christians about how the Devil seems to be taking a personal interest in them and is responsible for their difficulties implies otherwise. If the Devil was limited and not ‘everywhere’ like God then the Devil would appear to only be able to vex one person at a time.

            Probably best not to press this logic too far.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Probably best not to press this logic too far.

            It works best to push the logic too far.
            The christian says god is everywhere. They have to explain how he is not in the hell they have created getting burnt nor inside the trunk sewer. If they say he is not in these places, how can they maintain omnipresence.

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Interesting. I was definitely taught the devil was *everywhere* and while perhaps not ALL knowing, he’s pretty close to it. However I was catholic, and a huge part of our religious view is based on the devil, his powers, his minions (demons), and hell. I don’t know if the protestants are as soaked in damnation as us.

            As far as not pressing the logic too far, one best not do that will all of religion!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            If the devil is omnipresent and appears to be omnipotent, if one reads christian literature, how does one separate god from the devil? Isn’t god two face?

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            I was taught the devil was omnipresent but not omnipotent…so he’s a bit weaker than god. He also has red skin, horns, and cloven hooves…god is the guy dressed in white with a beard (and perhaps a lightning bolt).

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            what has stopped omnipotence from killing the devil?

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Well now, that’s a good question. I think god keeps the devil around because Eve ate the apple, and now we all must be tortured and punished, and then god saves us by murdering himself, and…???

            That’s such a good question I don’t know how to answer it.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Haha. It is ridiculous for the goddites to continue to blame the devil or people when their god would easily bring the matter to a close

            Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            Oh wait! Didn’t god say there can’t be light without darkness? That’s why he doesn’t kill the devil…cuz it would make himself less, uh, bright?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            The devil then must be the bringer of light/ knowledge

            Like

          • Obviously, a fear of Hell for eternity, duh.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Aha, omnipotence fears hell?

            Like

          • Peter says:

            All I can do is respond with a joke:

            Little Johnny was going to his fathers house one day and he was packing everything in his room and putting it in his little red wagon.

            He was walking to his fathers house with his wagon behind him, when he came to this hill.

            He started up the hill but was constantly swearing “This God damn thing is so heavy”

            A priest heard him and came out. “You shouldn’t be swearing” said the priest. “God hears you…He is everywhere…He’s in the church…He’s on the sidewalk…He’s everywhere”

            Then Little Johnny says “Oh is he in my Wagon”

            The priest replies “Yes Johnny God is in your Wagon”

            Little Johnny says “Well tell him to get the hell out and start pulling”

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            I love your jokes. They are always as good as any response

            Like

  7. shelldigger says:

    Timeless and spaceless, yet capable of creating the universe, and all that is in it. I am not sure either how that works. It doesn’t even seem to be comprehensible.

    My god is gravity. It is timeless, it exists, can be proven, and capable of creation. Beat that jeebus!

    Like

  8. basenjibrian says:

    I have to keep referring to a blogger I like, Benjamin Craig, who has speculated amusingly on the nature of this ephemeral deity. (His thesis is that the universe is a decaying corpse of the undead deity) 🙂

    http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      That thesis fortunately isn’t a new one. In Scott Adams’ god debris, he argues we are trying to, each of us, reconstruct god. That god imagined its own death, died and we are the result. An interesting book. I will visit the link you have provided. Thanks for sharing

      Like

  9. Arkenaten says:

    Sure, I’m a Christian — but I don’t believe my holy book is proof that God exists.

    When christians like Seth say their belief is not based on the veracity of the bible then how the the hell did he come by any knowledge of the character, Jesus of Nazareth?
    I say he is lying through his teeth.

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s