There isno god/s

[nomadpete]

If there are any gods, prove it.

[willedoo]

If there aren't any gods, prove it.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Doesn't work like that, @willedoo.. "You can't disprove my assertion, therefore my assertion must be true..." Erm.. yeah..

[nomadpete]

As a card carrying agnostic, I'm naturally spiritually cynical. Never the less, around about the last week of each calendar year, I do take the opportunity to wish friends and family well. Just to let them know that I care about them and their wellbeing. It isn't anything to do with gods.

 

But now that somebody has explained that the act of 'wishing' anything, is a selfish act by the wisher, I feel guilty about it.

 

Is there a alternative that isn't selfish?

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Is there a alternative that isn't selfish?

Simple.

"I give you the compliments of the Season".

[Marty_d]

I can't see how thinking about someone, and wishing them well, is selfish.

 

[nomadpete]

I refer you to OME's entemological assessment :-

 

"wishing for something for another person is selfish because you are not giving anything of any sort of value away."

[nomadpete]

Another year has almost slid beneath my keel, so.....

 

Have a great time, celebrate your achievements folks!

[spacesailor]

Live Long & Prosper. 

I bestow on thee !, Health Wealth & Happiness.

may you walk with the sun on your face & the wind at your back.

spacesailor

[nomadpete]

Gods?

 

I suspect that the metaverse has replaced the need for gods

 

I'm pretty sure that the younger generation believe in their mobile phones as much as anyone older ever believed in a god

[Yenn]

So long as they don't wish the curse of the 7 blind bastards upon you.

May your balls turn square and fester at the corners.

Now that would be a wish.

[old man emu]

On 24/12/2021 at 9:37 PM, nomadpete said:

If there are any gods, prove it.

 

On 24/12/2021 at 10:34 PM, willedoo said:

If there aren't any gods, prove it.

Proving the existence of any one of the numerous gods worshiped by Mankind often ends up in Civil Court matters where, as an example, an insurance company, representing an individual or organisation denies liability for damages caused based on the concept of "Act of God". The logical next step for the plaintiff would be to sue "God". 

 

There's a 2001 Australian movie, The Man who sued God which follows that line or reasoning. Basically, the hero of this film has his commercial fishing boat destroyed by a bolt of lightning. He informs his insurance company, which reviews and then subsequently declines his claim on the grounds that it is not liable as his fishing boat was destroyed due to an "Act of God".  He files a claim against God, naming church officials as representatives of God and thereby the respondents. The church leaders, their respective lawyers and their insurance company get together to find a way to settle this dilemma. It is in Court that God's representatives will have to admit that the destruction of his fishing boat was actually God's Act, accept and compensate him, or deny it altogether thereby denying God's existence, leaving the onus on him to prove his claim.

 

There have actually been cases of this kind - of course in the home of litigation, the USA. In 1970 a woman sued God for his "negligence", allowing a lightning bolt to strike her house. When God "failed to turn up in court", she won the case by default. On a similar line, a Nebraska case was dismissed because God could not be properly notified, not having a fixed address. The Judge stated, "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice". The plaintiff, assuming God to be singular and all-knowing, responded, "The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience.  Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

 

“In God We Trust” was adopted as the United States’ official motto in 1956, during a time when the country was locked in an ideological battle with “godless communism” in the Soviet Union. Until then, the elegant phrase “E Pluribus Unum” (Latin for “Out of many, one”) had served as the nation’s unofficial motto. The use of "In God We Trust" has been argued about since it seems to contradict the First Amendment in that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". By adopting that motto, the Congress is proposing that Christianity is the official religion. Congress probably ignored Judaism and Islam, which are both monotheist.

 

The preamble to the Australian Constitution says, Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, therefore implying the existence of "God". As in the USA, an Australian Court must either accept a "God" in line with the Constitution, or deny "God" and deny the Constitution. The Constitution of New South Wales sets out this:

No Member to sit or vote until pledge of loyalty or oath of allegiance taken

(1)  A Member of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly is not permitted to sit or vote in the House to which the Member has been elected until the Member has taken the pledge of loyalty or oath of allegiance before the Governor or other person authorised by the Governor for that purpose.

(2)  The pledge of loyalty is to be in the following form—

Under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and to the people of New South Wales.

(3)  A Member may omit the words “Under God” when taking the pledge of loyalty.

(4)  The oath of allegiance is to be in the following form (with the name of the reigning Sovereign substituted, where appropriate)—

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Nice stuff OME.  But Williedoo is quite correct when he says that the onus on proving  outlandish claims  correctly falls on the claimant.

Otherwise the Spaghetti Monster God would be equal to the Abrahamic God. It is not up to the opponents of the Spaghetti God to prove his non-existence.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I assume that the God you refer to in the legal stuff is the Abrahamic god, or is it a Protestant God or what? Apparently there are more than 4,000 Gods to choose one from.

[facthunter]

Most of the God believers believe that only THEIR God is the true one so consider 3999 of them to be imposters. I'm so close to being of a similar view Just add ONE and were are there.  It's a miniscule adjustment. Nev

[Yenn]

A minischool may be preferable to the existing church schools. Remember the cattleticks say give me a child for 5 years and i will give you a fool who believes in my god, or something similar.

[old man emu]

On 01/01/2022 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

the Abrahamic god, or is it a Protestant God

Same dog, different collar.

[facthunter]

Dog Allbitey is the one to watch.  Nev

[willedoo]

Happy Orthodox Christmas, or if you happen to be a Pastafarian, Happy No Knitting Day.

[nomadpete]

Being an unorthodox character, I already gave up knitting for lent. Do I have to give it up again?

[willedoo]

14 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Being an unorthodox character, I already gave up knitting for lent. Do I have to give it up again?

Only once a year, 7th. January. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has banned knitting on that day.

[old man emu]

Yesterday, the 7th January 2022, a date that will live infamously, I faithfully observed the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ban on knitting, per se. However, I did pasta day untangling my strands.

[nomadpete]

Call me a doubting thomas, but ........

Knitting banned by the spaghetti god, only one day of the year? Really? So that god is very special if she enables her followers to knit spaghetti all other days of the year..... Uncooked spag is not knittable and cooked spag is not knitting friendly either. I call this whole yarn BS.

 

Maybe I am being a little too analytical. (SWMBO does call me Mr Aspie.)

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I call this whole yarn BS.

You can spin a BS yarn, but it doesn't hold together under examination and you get tied up in knots after you spin it.

[facthunter]

Such a decree is hard on close knit families.  Nev