Here is a theory about God everyone can agree on and prove.
God died sometime after 1480, he was slain by the combined forces of Death and Satan, whom he threatened to overcome.
These two powerful and subtle forces ensured God was the cause of his own destruction. He never even saw it coming.
Now, why we can all agree on this is:
1. There have been no miracles since Joan of Arc.
2. We can now all agree God does not exist.
3. Death still persists, unvanquished.
4. Evil still exists.
5. This fits all available data.
Am I wrong?
A theory about God everyone can agree on
Moderator: Moderators
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #31
Gentlebeings! Gentlebeings!
This post was meant to provide harmony between believers and non-believers alike by providing an evidenced based compromise!
It should be that non-theists, or non-Yahwists should be able to say, since they were not there, that God performed miracles and so on.
While Judists and Christians may acknowledge not a hide nor hair has been seen about him in centuries, so he must no longer exist.
So far people have criticized trivium, and I see no real dispute. Surely this is a moment of rejoicing, in the wake of the terrible tragedy of God's death. It is one that occurred so long ago that the wounds have healed, and we can rejoice, not name call.
Isn't it odd, though, that God was slain, and no one even noticed?
This post was meant to provide harmony between believers and non-believers alike by providing an evidenced based compromise!
It should be that non-theists, or non-Yahwists should be able to say, since they were not there, that God performed miracles and so on.
While Judists and Christians may acknowledge not a hide nor hair has been seen about him in centuries, so he must no longer exist.
So far people have criticized trivium, and I see no real dispute. Surely this is a moment of rejoicing, in the wake of the terrible tragedy of God's death. It is one that occurred so long ago that the wounds have healed, and we can rejoice, not name call.
Isn't it odd, though, that God was slain, and no one even noticed?
Post #32
Really? In this thread you essentially said, “I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is a liar or insane!� Do you genuinely see this as an effort at “harmony� or even “compromise�? It is hard to take such an idea seriously.Willum wrote: Gentlebeings! Gentlebeings!
This post was meant to provide harmony between believers and non-believers alike by providing an evidenced based compromise!
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #33
[Replying to post 32 by bjs]
Really, I thought I ended the post with:
"Am I wrong?"
Let me check, yep, that's how it ended.
So far there have been no serious objections. Nothing concrete to even discuss as a matter of fact.
And I have been quite amiable - I conceded that Joan of Arc was not necessarily a miracle, so God has been dead sometime after the prophets.
We now have no evidence of God since about 40 CE.
So we know he died sometime after then.
Death and evil are still around...
So, what are the arguments proving the theory wrong?
I honestly don't think there are any. But I am listening.
Really, I thought I ended the post with:
"Am I wrong?"
Let me check, yep, that's how it ended.
So far there have been no serious objections. Nothing concrete to even discuss as a matter of fact.
And I have been quite amiable - I conceded that Joan of Arc was not necessarily a miracle, so God has been dead sometime after the prophets.
We now have no evidence of God since about 40 CE.
So we know he died sometime after then.
Death and evil are still around...
So, what are the arguments proving the theory wrong?
I honestly don't think there are any. But I am listening.
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #341. People believe in miracles when certain things happen that go against all science. An example would be a terminally ill patient with a large tumor whose tumor seemingly goes away all on its own despite everything science knows about it, and that person recovers to full health. Many people would believe this to be a miracle from God, and I believe they are justified in believing this. According to your third post, they are either mentally ill or charlatans. I found that a very insulting thing to say.Willum wrote: Here is a theory about God everyone can agree on and prove.
God died sometime after 1480, he was slain by the combined forces of Death and Satan, whom he threatened to overcome.
These two powerful and subtle forces ensured God was the cause of his own destruction. He never even saw it coming.
Now, why we can all agree on this is:
1. There have been no miracles since Joan of Arc.
2. We can now all agree God does not exist.
3. Death still persists, unvanquished.
4. Evil still exists.
5. This fits all available data.
Am I wrong?
2. Huh? So you went from number 1 saying there's no miracles to number 2 saying we all can agree God doesn't exist? This seems oddly out of place in your list.
3. Do you have the absolute knowledge of the time when God is supposed to get rid of all death?
4. Not all believe the existence of evil negates the existence of God. The problem of evil is giant topic that has been discussed endlessly by scholars with no logical winner.
5. What point are you making here? That the data available supports your 4 prior assertions?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14441
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 929 times
- Been thanked: 1681 times
- Contact:
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #35[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
My main issue with your theory is that if the GOD of the Abranites was killed through being defeated by Satan's evil, then a new GOD has arisen to take the place of the old one, and so effectively GOD is not dead, just replaced by a stronger, evil GOD.
This because, generally, it takes a GOD to defeat a GOD. Even if it were the actual case, I fail to see how your claim 'A theory about God everyone can agree on' is agreeable to everyone.
GOOD still exists in this world, so that alone is evidence your theory that GOOD has died [or murdered/usurped/whatever] is incorrect.
Besides which, The Earth still exists, and since I understand the Earth as being 'the local GOD', I cannot agree that 'GOD does not exist'(as per your point [2]).
Point [3] is also debatable re experiences and subsequent ideas pertaining to afterlife.
My main issue with your theory is that if the GOD of the Abranites was killed through being defeated by Satan's evil, then a new GOD has arisen to take the place of the old one, and so effectively GOD is not dead, just replaced by a stronger, evil GOD.
This because, generally, it takes a GOD to defeat a GOD. Even if it were the actual case, I fail to see how your claim 'A theory about God everyone can agree on' is agreeable to everyone.
GOOD still exists in this world, so that alone is evidence your theory that GOOD has died [or murdered/usurped/whatever] is incorrect.
Besides which, The Earth still exists, and since I understand the Earth as being 'the local GOD', I cannot agree that 'GOD does not exist'(as per your point [2]).
Point [3] is also debatable re experiences and subsequent ideas pertaining to afterlife.
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #36[Replying to post 34 by jgh7]
Thank you for replying.
1. I do see your point, but as for other miracles, people claim many things, but we are talking about genuine canonized miracles from the Abrahamic God. I have done some research and have found the even the "Virgin of Guadalupe," has some reasonable doubt to its authenticity.
But like I say, I am keeping an open mind, if you can show me a Canonized miracle, well, there you have your proof.
2. They are disparate points, they don't need to follow.
3. Non-sequitur, it is not germane to the premise, at least I don't see how.
4. But now, with this hypothesis, we do have clear and logical winner. I am not proposing evil negates God, I am stating for refutation, that God was slain by evil and death, whom God nobly declared war on, but did not end it fast enough, it seems.
5. Again, five different points, not necessarily related. This OP hypothesis fit all available Judeo-Christian and skeptic data. If you have something to present incongruous to the topic, well, that is what the topic is about!
Best regards,
Thank you for replying.
1. I do see your point, but as for other miracles, people claim many things, but we are talking about genuine canonized miracles from the Abrahamic God. I have done some research and have found the even the "Virgin of Guadalupe," has some reasonable doubt to its authenticity.
But like I say, I am keeping an open mind, if you can show me a Canonized miracle, well, there you have your proof.
2. They are disparate points, they don't need to follow.
3. Non-sequitur, it is not germane to the premise, at least I don't see how.
4. But now, with this hypothesis, we do have clear and logical winner. I am not proposing evil negates God, I am stating for refutation, that God was slain by evil and death, whom God nobly declared war on, but did not end it fast enough, it seems.
5. Again, five different points, not necessarily related. This OP hypothesis fit all available Judeo-Christian and skeptic data. If you have something to present incongruous to the topic, well, that is what the topic is about!
Best regards,
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #37[Replying to post 35 by William]
You also disputed point three, but I would like to point out there have been no divine resurrections since Lazarus and Jesus. Modern resurrections are not three days old, and stinking... they are near-death experiences.
William, thank you - this is exactly the kind of discourse I hoped to generate!
Huh?! What?! Huh? There is no evidence of any other god rising to take ole Yahweh's place, unless of course you mean Satan and death, but that is a default of the topic. Please elaborate.My main issue with your theory is that if the GOD of the Abranites was killed through being defeated by Satan's evil, then a new GOD has arisen to take the place of the old one, and so effectively GOD is not dead, just replaced by a stronger, evil GOD.
Ah, yes, being all powerful and being able to do anything apparently means that you can be tricked into being the instrument of your own destruction.This because, generally, it takes a GOD to defeat a GOD.
A good observation, however, Satan never vowed to destroy GOOD, he may not even have any profound power to do so, but God did say he would destroy death and evil...GOOD still exists in this world, so that alone is evidence your theory that GOOD has died [or murdered/usurped/whatever] is incorrect.
I have complimented your insight many times before, however, in this instance your insight must be incorrect, as it does not fit available data... if you could demonstrate where I am incorrect, it would of course greatly contribute to the topic.Besides which, The Earth still exists, and since I understand the Earth as being 'the local GOD', I cannot agree that 'GOD does not exist'(as per your point [2]).
You also disputed point three, but I would like to point out there have been no divine resurrections since Lazarus and Jesus. Modern resurrections are not three days old, and stinking... they are near-death experiences.
William, thank you - this is exactly the kind of discourse I hoped to generate!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14441
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 929 times
- Been thanked: 1681 times
- Contact:
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #38[Replying to post 37 by Willum]
Why was this not mentioned at the onset?
If this is the case, then at least theoretically, the Earth Entity can be regarded as a 'GOD'. I have also made statements elsewhere over the months that such an entity could well enough explain the rise of religions and other human cultural mythologies adequately.
It is therefore respectful to allow it (the argument) to be part of what is on the table re the ideas being argued. At least if you want me/my position to be part of this particular discussion.
Apparently there was no 'stink' at all reported. Perhaps it was a special 'soul group' experience where the two realities merged?
Or - re scientism - a 'group hallucination'...
Citation required. And;A good observation, however, Satan never vowed to destroy GOOD, but God did say he would destroy death and evil...
Why was this not mentioned at the onset?
Besides which, The Earth still exists, and since I understand the Earth as being 'the local GOD', I cannot agree that 'GOD does not exist'(as per your point [2]).
I have complimented your insight many times before, however, in this instance your insight must be incorrect, as it does not fit available data...
Of course it fits the available data. My claim is that the observation of biological evolution on this planet signifies that the planet may be intelligent and creatively able to do that very thing observed.I have complimented your insight many times before, however, in this instance your insight must be incorrect, as it does not fit available data... if you could demonstrate where I am incorrect, it would of course greatly contribute to the topic.
If this is the case, then at least theoretically, the Earth Entity can be regarded as a 'GOD'. I have also made statements elsewhere over the months that such an entity could well enough explain the rise of religions and other human cultural mythologies adequately.
It is therefore respectful to allow it (the argument) to be part of what is on the table re the ideas being argued. At least if you want me/my position to be part of this particular discussion.
Modern resurrections are not three days old, and stinking... they are near-death experiences.
Apparently there was no 'stink' at all reported. Perhaps it was a special 'soul group' experience where the two realities merged?
Or - re scientism - a 'group hallucination'...
Enough of the sweet-talk Willum - lets get on with it!William, thank you - this is exactly the kind of discourse I hoped to generate!
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #39[Replying to post 38 by William]
3 day stink (sic):
I assume readers have a certain modicum of familiarity with the Bible. Citation, Revelation 21:4. Isaiash 25:8. others.Why was this not mentioned at the onset?
I can't link your claim to biology, or Judeo-Christianity - and citation please, if you do.My claim is that the observation of biological evolution on this planet signifies that the planet may be intelligent and creatively able to do that very thing observed.
Even if this weren't outside the topics scope, as far as I can tell this is a dismissable cult, citation please.If this is the case, then at least theoretically, the Earth Entity can be regarded as a 'GOD'.
Personal opinions aren't worth much unless they can be backed up. I can't understand everyone's ideas unless they are defined and explained, and clearly yours is outside the topic scope. This one is speaking about various flavors of Judeo-Christianity, not Gaia-ismAt least if you want me/my position to be part of this particular discussion.
3 day stink (sic):
John 11:39. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14441
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 929 times
- Been thanked: 1681 times
- Contact:
Re: A theory about God everyone can agree on
Post #40[Replying to post 39 by Willum]
The link to both are in the interpretations each have in regard to the beliefs each have in relation to how life on earth happened.
Well I cannot say that you doing so has transgressed any of the sites rules regarding labeling ideas as cultish and dismissing those ideas as coming from cultists, because I don't call myself a 'Christian'.
So the OP is simply saying the GOD of the bible is dead. Not that The Earth Entity or any other entity who might exist and may be 'GOD-like' and/or 'cultist' by proclamation of those who say so, is 'dead'.
Thanks for the clarification.
That you also argue Abramites lifted many of their ideas from paganism does not count as a connection worthy enough to allow into your debate chamber as being 'within the scope.'
My bad.
I will leave you to play with the Christians in peace...if they haven't already decided such games are pointless.
Sorry. My assumption was that you would understand I was meaning citation for the first part of your claim, that being ~ "Satan never vowed to destroy GOOD"I assume readers have a certain modicum of familiarity with the Bible. Citation, Revelation 21:4. Isaiash 25:8. others.
My claim is that the observation of biological evolution on this planet signifies that the planet may be intelligent and creatively able to do that very thing observed.I can't link your claim to biology, or Judeo-Christianity - and citation please, if you do.
The link to both are in the interpretations each have in regard to the beliefs each have in relation to how life on earth happened.
If this is the case, then at least theoretically, the Earth Entity can be regarded as a 'GOD'.
Okay. So I am to assume by this remark that it can be generally accepted that one can name others as being part of a 'cult' and therefore even if what I am arguing wasn't outside the topics focus, can be dismissed simply because it is 'cultist'?Even if this weren't outside the topics scope, as far as I can tell this is a dismissable cult, citation please.
Well I cannot say that you doing so has transgressed any of the sites rules regarding labeling ideas as cultish and dismissing those ideas as coming from cultists, because I don't call myself a 'Christian'.
So the OP is simply saying the GOD of the bible is dead. Not that The Earth Entity or any other entity who might exist and may be 'GOD-like' and/or 'cultist' by proclamation of those who say so, is 'dead'.
Thanks for the clarification.
I understand. Christianity is the bigger fish to fry because it is an establish organised religion and not a cult.Personal opinions aren't worth much unless they can be backed up. I can't understand everyone's ideas unless they are defined and explained, and clearly yours is outside the topic scope. This one is speaking about various flavors of Judeo-Christianity, not Gaia-ism
That you also argue Abramites lifted many of their ideas from paganism does not count as a connection worthy enough to allow into your debate chamber as being 'within the scope.'
My bad.
I will leave you to play with the Christians in peace...if they haven't already decided such games are pointless.