e8677fe8   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: gn779631@cox.net   
      
   On 7/15/2010 4:46 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the   
   Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:   
   > On Jul 15, 2:28 pm, Lefty  wrote:   
   >> On 7/15/2010 11:03 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the   
   >>   
   >> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:   
   >>> OK, this is THE ULTIMATE QUESTION we must ask God:   
   >>   
   >>> "DO YOU HAVE A CREATOR?"   
   >>   
   >>> If he answers "no," he's an atheist. If he answers "yes," he's not the   
   >>> Almighty God.   
   >>   
   >> That doesn't logically follow.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> If everything needs a creator, so does God.   
   >>   
   >> I see. So you're making up new arguments to prove yours.   
   >>   
   >> No one set as a condition that everything needed a creator. You and I   
   >> were "created" when our parents had sex and sperm and egg did their   
   >> thing. But it's entirely possible a being started the process off.   
   >>   
   >>> If you propose the argument that everything which exists needs a   
   >>> creator, you have to accept the implications. That means if God   
   >>> exists, he must have had a creator. And because God's creator exists,   
   >>> he must have had a creator too - and so on and so on to an infinity of   
   >>> creators.   
   >>   
   >> I'm an atheist, and even I don't follow this silliness. If the   
   >> definition of God is the creator of everything in existence that we are   
   >> aware of, why does the possibility that he was created change that   
   >> definition?   
   >>   
   >> Whether or not God exists is not actually knowable. But trying to   
   >> logically prove or disprove his existence logically requires a singular   
   >> definition of God, which you don't have.   
   >   
   > It sounds quite reasonable, even likely that a certain supreme   
   > "god" (say a Hitler) denies any other authority other than himself,   
   > thus making him a atheist.   
      
   You just reinforced my point. Without a static definition of "god" any   
   declaration of either theism or atheism is a declaration of faith and   
   nothing more.   
   >   
   > Do you think the Fuhrer believed in God? It all seems a dangerous   
   > concept to me.   
   >   
   > The concept though of God being inside each of us would be more   
   > democratic. But then what do we need god for?   
   >   
      
   Perhaps "we" don't need god, but individuals do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)