religious forums • page 1/3 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

Hello guys , i just noticed that many people are making religious forums but people say its spam . its wrong .........why ? because god is everywhere on earth but why not in forums ? people who love god (who has bhakti ) , we should not force them to dont make like that forums .

if you agree like
if not dislike

Hello guys , i just noticed that many people are making religious forums but people say its spam . its wrong .........why ? because god is everywhere on earth but why not in forums ? people who love god (who has bhakti ) , we should not force them to dont make like that forums . if you agree like if not dislike

PLSDONTCLOSEMYACC

#2

religious forums can start fight so staying away from it is better

KiHjJjH

#3

Please stop religious forums

bestplayer31

#4

@PLSDONTCLOSEMYACC said in #2:

religious forums can start fight so staying away from it is better

ohh ok
but i never saw it

@PLSDONTCLOSEMYACC said in #2: > religious forums can start fight so staying away from it is better ohh ok but i never saw it

Bruh

Religious threads aren't inherently bad, many new perspectives have the potential of arising in an individual's mind, but it's what the type of posts made by thin-skinned-offended people make that is bad.

Mantram_PateL

#7

@bestplayer31 said in #4:

ohh ok
but i never saw it

https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-god-so-powerful-that-shehe-can-create-a-rock-so-large-that-shemthemselves-cant-lift-#6

@bestplayer31 said in #4: > ohh ok > but i never saw it https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-god-so-powerful-that-shehe-can-create-a-rock-so-large-that-shemthemselves-cant-lift-#6

Duh, not again.

They tend to spark a debate between which imaginary friend is better.
And then a debate against those who point that out.

So, spam.

They tend to spark a debate between which imaginary friend is better. And then a debate against those who point that out. So, spam.

lokomis edited

#10

God(s) seemingly cannot, or at least have not, ever be evidenced in an empirical manner. The very nature of being supernatural places it or them outside of our best methods for obtaining knowledge about what we observe and experience. If it or they can interact with our world, how would we evidence that fact? How, for example, would we distinguish the difference between a god saying "no" to prayer versus no god being there to answer it? Or a "yes" from coincidence? Unless, in the limitless power often attributed to them, a god should reveal itself to everyone in such an unmistakable, unquestionable manner as to remove all doubts, I see no way forward in a way that appeals to the empirical.

Thus we are left to the metaphysical, where nothing particularly interesting has occurred in quite some time. The most common arguments seem to demand presuppositions about the nature of time, whether infinities are possible, or so on. Some apologists will argue about apparent "design" with comparisons to paintings or watches. All while disregarding we've observed multiple painters and watchmakers making multiple paintings and watches but we've only one observable universe for which none of us have witnessed a universe-maker making.

That's still to ignore the most base issue that empirically, metaphysically, by whatever means we've still the issue of the supernatural nature and that these beings are completely unfalsifiable. By no evidence or logic can I disprove the earth didn't come to be some 6000 years ago if some omnipotent being was responsible for it. Nor could anyone disprove my claim Frank the necessarily eternal, invisible, intangible, cosmic unicorn ripped a wet fart a week ago releasing forth the universe and that all your memories to this point are the work of Frank's limitless power. That's the core problem of arguing for or against "necessary" omnipotent beings.

The best methods we have for understanding our reality don't point directly to god, especially not any particular one. And when everyone is certain theirs is the "true" one while all the rest are "false," "corruptions of the truth," or what have you, I'm left to reason they're all likely false and the unproven claims of men. To the theists, believe what you will but never force it upon others. Me? I'm withholding belief until something convinces me otherwise. If there's an all-powerful god that truly wants me to believe in it, I'm sure it can figure out how to achieve that.

God(s) seemingly cannot, or at least have not, ever be evidenced in an empirical manner. The very nature of being supernatural places it or them outside of our best methods for obtaining knowledge about what we observe and experience. If it or they can interact with our world, how would we evidence that fact? How, for example, would we distinguish the difference between a god saying "no" to prayer versus no god being there to answer it? Or a "yes" from coincidence? Unless, in the limitless power often attributed to them, a god should reveal itself to everyone in such an unmistakable, unquestionable manner as to remove all doubts, I see no way forward in a way that appeals to the empirical. Thus we are left to the metaphysical, where nothing particularly interesting has occurred in quite some time. The most common arguments seem to demand presuppositions about the nature of time, whether infinities are possible, or so on. Some apologists will argue about apparent "design" with comparisons to paintings or watches. All while disregarding we've observed multiple painters and watchmakers making multiple paintings and watches but we've only one observable universe for which none of us have witnessed a universe-maker making. That's still to ignore the most base issue that empirically, metaphysically, by whatever means we've still the issue of the supernatural nature and that these beings are completely unfalsifiable. By no evidence or logic can I disprove the earth didn't come to be some 6000 years ago if some omnipotent being was responsible for it. Nor could anyone disprove my claim Frank the necessarily eternal, invisible, intangible, cosmic unicorn ripped a wet fart a week ago releasing forth the universe and that all your memories to this point are the work of Frank's limitless power. That's the core problem of arguing for or against "necessary" omnipotent beings. The best methods we have for understanding our reality don't point directly to god, especially not any particular one. And when everyone is certain theirs is the "true" one while all the rest are "false," "corruptions of the truth," or what have you, I'm left to reason they're all likely false and the unproven claims of men. To the theists, believe what you will but never force it upon others. Me? I'm withholding belief until something convinces me otherwise. If there's an all-powerful god that truly wants me to believe in it, I'm sure it can figure out how to achieve that.