Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1281282284286287327

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    What about life?
    Examined that too to the best of my ability, came up negative for your god.
    and man is not irresponsible ?
    I didn't say that.

    I have. do you believe aliens exist?
    I suspect there is life in some form or another out there on a comet or a planet, given the vastness of the universe and the high number of stars, galaxies and planets there are. However, I will not claim to have knowledge of what those alien life forms will be like before we've found them. It's fine to speculate, but to claim definitive knowledge? (note that this applies to claims about the after-life too. Neither you nor I have been there, if there is an after-life. You have taken the claim that Jesus came back from the dead, I haven't).

    Perhaps you should explore it.
    *Shrugs*

    Forgive me but I do detect serious quantities of bias. For someone seeking the truth you do seem to be quite taken with lies, mis information, half truths and bias. Someone who is open would not call people with faith gullible or use asinine arguments like "god of the gaps" in any seriousness, but no matter. Maybe you just don't realize how biased you are.
    I'd love to know where I've been taken with outright lies and mis information. As far as I've been able to determine, everything that I do believe in is the truth. Note the key part there, able to determine. It's no good standing there on a virtual street-corner repeating over and over "What I'm saying is the truth" if I'm not able to verify it. Given that you have in the past stated you can't/won't apply proof for your god, then I have no reason to accept your claims.
    Did you pray with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul?
    What did you pray for?
    Now what exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that I do the action of prayer having already somehow 'flipped' the belief switch in my mind?
    No, I did not. I cannot willingly flip that switch. I need to be convinced of something before I will believe it. I did the actions, and nothing happened. Even when I was a believer while younger, nothing happened (this is contrary to the claims in the bible such as Matthew 7:7 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%207:7 or Matthew 17:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew_17:20&version=9 or Matthew 21:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew_21:21&version=9. That last quote is just hilarious, since there are no doubt plenty of people who believe in the bible 100%, do these prayers...and yet nothing miraculous on the scale of mountains falling into the sea happens.
    This to me is just vile what you said, it has the tone of "You just didn't believe hard enough!" that I've heard from other christians. It blames the believer for the fact that nothing happens when praying to a non-existent deity.
    Just out of curiosity - how does GTA5 inform your relationships with women?
    It doesn't, considering this Wednesday was the first time I played it. Since then I've logged all of...what, one, two hours on it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Out of interest, exactly what irrefutable evidence would prove God ? To someone who does not want to believe, there is no evidence that I can think of, that could not equally be explained away as some extremely advanced alien species/spirit, pretending to be God.

    What a great bit of whimsical fun this one is. There are thousands of ways which God could use to convince everybody of his existence.

    My current favourite would be to wake up some day to hear that every computer, every phone and every television carried the same message, God exists and at 9am GMT, he was going to prove it. At that time, all traces of the Ebola virus would disappear. If that were to happen, Mr. Wayne, I think most people would be convinced. The only trouble would be that God would have to clarify which denomination represented him best. If he didn't, the rows would quickly start again, between all the different groupings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    What a great bit of whimsical fun this one is. There are thousands of ways which God could use to convince everybody of his existence.

    My current favourite would be to wake up some day to hear that every computer, every phone and every television carried the same message, God exists and at 9am GMT, he was going to prove it. At that time, all traces of the Ebola virus would disappear. If that were to happen, Mr. Wayne, I think most people would be convinced. The only trouble would be that God would have to clarify which denomination represented him best. If he didn't, the rows would quickly start again, between all the different groupings.
    Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, He avoids interactions with His Creation as He has given us free-will and any interaction by an omnipotent Being could compromise our free-will.
    When He last came onto the Earth He came as a Human Being ... and He used His omnipotent powers vary sparingly - and He didn't use them to compromise anybodies free-will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, He avoids interactions with His Creation as He has given us free-will and any interaction by an omnipotent Being could compromise our free-will.
    When He last came onto the Earth He came as a Human Being ... and He used His omnipotent powers vary sparingly - and He didn't use them to compromise anybodies free-will.

    Given that this is the existence of god debate thread, your post (talking about the properties and attributes of your god) is kinda putting the cart before the horse. You can make whatever declarations about your god all you want, but it's pointless since you haven't demonstrated there to be a god at all yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, He avoids interactions with His Creation as He has given us free-will and any interaction by an omnipotent Being could compromise our free-will.
    When He last came onto the Earth He came as a Human Being ... and He used His omnipotent powers vary sparingly - and He didn't use them to compromise anybodies free-will.

    You see that disturbs me in god and the free will, when I look at examples for where is the this stated in the bible like proverbs 16:9 "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps." that I understand that whatever I do I do what god had planned for me. So even becoming an atheist? What becomes a question of interpretation what seems weird for an omnipotent god. As I am not really an expert in it, look at people that studied the people a lot and come up with other contradictions like jehovas witnesses that rule out blood transfusions, while the catholic church states it is fine.
    Also an omnipotent god who is prayed to by starving children that how hard they might pray starve to death. All under the eye of god where some say he knows what is best for them so he let them suffer like his son.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, He avoids interactions with His Creation as He has given us free-will and any interaction by an omnipotent Being could compromise our free-will.
    When He last came onto the Earth He came as a Human Being ... and He used His omnipotent powers vary sparingly - and He didn't use them to compromise anybodies free-will.

    I can think of no negative reasons for God not to offer proof of his existence. The term "free will" is a contrivance. Think about it, if God actually proved he exists, clearly to the whole world (and before you say it, he hasn't) then everyone, well most people, would realise the whole thing was real and this would be a much better world to live in. Surely that would be very positive from his point of view. The fact that he hasn't ever proved his existence, beyond doubt, is evidence enough that he actually doesn't exist. If he did exist, we would all know, without doubt, about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Given that this is the existence of god debate thread, your post (talking about the properties and attributes of your god) is kinda putting the cart before the horse. You can make whatever declarations about your god all you want, but it's pointless since you haven't demonstrated there to be a god at all yet.
    That would involve many things discussed of the mega-thread (such as ID, evidence for Creation and biblical inerrancy as well as the invalidity of the secular ideas and explanations of these issues) ... and would be most likely be moved there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    I can think of no negative reasons for God not to offer proof of his existence. The term "free will" is a contrivance. Think about it, if God actually proved he exists, clearly to the whole world (and before you say it, he hasn't) then everyone, well most people, would realise the whole thing was real and this would be a much better world to live in. Surely that would be very positive from his point of view. The fact that he hasn't ever proved his existence, beyond doubt, is evidence enough that he actually doesn't exist. If he did exist, we would all know, without doubt, about it.
    Firstly absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
    Secondly, there are many proofs for the existence of a God who created everything ... the concept of an Ultimate Cause and the evidence for the Intelligent Design of life, to name but two.

    Equally, the fine tuning of the Universe also indicates an intelligence of divine proportions and capacity behind it all.

    ... and there are further arguments and evidence for God discussed here
    http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/

    ... on a more mundane level, near death experiences, provide tantalizing evidence of life beyond death.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Firstly absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
    Secondly, there are many proofs for the existence of a God who created everything ... the concept of an Ultimate Cause and the evidence for the Intelligent Design of life, to name but two.

    I have read this "evidence" you present. It gives us one the one hand:
    'Part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is “perfect being” and on the other: 'If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite punishment in hell'
    A perfect being would never punish someone forever for not believing in him, they wouldn't need to, because they would have perfect self esteem. So that "evidence" is nonsense.
    J C wrote: »
    Equally, the fine tuning of the Universe also indicates an intelligence of divine proportions and capacity behind it all.
    No it doesn't!

    J C wrote: »
    .. on a more mundane level, near death experiences, provide tantalizing evidence of life beyond death.

    Come on, JC. You are better than that!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I suspect there is life in some form or another out there on a comet or a planet, given the vastness of the universe and the high number of stars, galaxies and planets there are.

    If it is there how did it start?

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I'd love to know where I've been taken with outright lies and mis information.

    I have not been able to determine any truth in atheism.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    As far as I've been able to determine, everything that I do believe in is the truth. Note the key part there, able to determine.

    You do realize that humans are limited. the mind can only go so far.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Now what exactly do you mean by this?

    I mean what I have said. have your tried properly, wholeheartedly. It is not possible if you are biased.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I cannot willingly flip that switch. I need to be convinced of something before I will believe it.

    What about the stuff you believe in without proof? Or are you going to tell me that you really believe that in the beginning nothing exploded for no good reason and then a bunch of elements randomly reacted and against all the odds of probability sorted themselves into self replicating cells that eventually became all living species on this planet and you are so convinced of it you can prove all of this?
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I did the actions, and nothing happened. Even when I was a believer while younger, nothing happened (this is contrary to the claims in the bible such as Matthew 7:7 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%207:7 or Matthew 17:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew_17:20&version=9 or Matthew 21:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew_21:21&version=9. That last quote is just hilarious, since there are no doubt plenty of people who believe in the bible 100%, do these prayers...and yet nothing miraculous on the scale of mountains falling into the sea happens.
    This to me is just vile what you said, it has the tone of "You just didn't believe hard enough!" that I've heard from other christians. It blames the believer for the fact that nothing happens when praying to a non-existent deity.

    I'll ignore the vile things gullible and asinine atheists say regularly.

    We're you praying for something worthwhile or were you praying to test God?

    You see, I've been there - praying for certain things and it doesn't happen. It doesn't mean God does not exist.


    Now if you will forgive me I have some jobs to do in the Matrix and won't be near a hardwire for some days.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    What a great bit of whimsical fun this one is. There are thousands of ways which God could use to convince everybody of his existence.

    My current favourite would be to wake up some day to hear that every computer, every phone and every television carried the same message, God exists and at 9am GMT, he was going to prove it.

    Various governments can alrady control all media devices already so what would that prove.
    Safehands wrote: »
    At that time, all traces of the Ebola virus would disappear.

    That can be done already too - ebola is an engineered bioweapon and those who engineered it have the cure, so how would that be miraculous?
    Safehands wrote: »
    If that were to happen, Mr. Wayne, I think most people would be convinced.

    So far you haven't even convinced this Catholic. All you have presented is technological magic.
    Safehands wrote: »
    The only trouble would be that God would have to clarify which denomination represented him best.

    Don't worry He will - but not on this evidence.
    Safehands wrote: »
    If he didn't, the rows would quickly start again, between all the different groupings.

    I think when He does appear most of the rows will be between the atheists.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    I can think of no negative reasons for God not to offer proof of his existence. The term "free will" is a contrivance. Think about it, if God actually proved he exists, clearly to the whole world (and before you say it, he hasn't) then everyone, well most people, would realise the whole thing was real and this would be a much better world to live in. Surely that would be very positive from his point of view. The fact that he hasn't ever proved his existence, beyond doubt, is evidence enough that he actually doesn't exist. If he did exist, we would all know, without doubt, about it.

    What would happen to "free will" if everyone know for a fact that God exists and hence so does Hell?

    The knowledge of Hell would drive many sinners mad, so the world would not be such a nice place after all. For those not driven mad by the prospect it would negate free will.

    God wants us to either choose Him or reject Him and that requires free will.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Harika wrote: »
    You see that disturbs me in god and the free will, when I look at examples for where is the this stated in the bible like proverbs 16:9 "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps." that I understand that whatever I do I do what god had planned for me. So even becoming an atheist? What becomes a question of interpretation what seems weird for an omnipotent god. As I am not really an expert in it, look at people that studied the people a lot and come up with other contradictions like jehovas witnesses that rule out blood transfusions, while the catholic church states it is fine.
    Also an omnipotent god who is prayed to by starving children that how hard they might pray starve to death. All under the eye of god where some say he knows what is best for them so he let them suffer like his son.


    Read the whole of Proverbs 16 an don't just take one stanza out of context.

    if you read stanza 3

    "Commit to the Lord whatever you do,and he will establish your plans"

    in conjunction with the 9 you extracted and your argument collapses.

    As for the JW position - it might be worthwhile for you to research why they take that position given there is no support for it in the Bible. That said, anyone enjoying a full Irish is stuffed.

    I could go into the issue of the children but it is complicated by the actions of wealthy atheist capitalists who maintain poverty in many parts of the world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    Festus wrote: »
    Various governments can alrady control all media devices already so what would that prove.



    That can be done already too - ebola is an engineered bioweapon and those who engineered it have the cure, so how would that be miraculous?



    So far you haven't even convinced this Catholic. All you have presented is technological magic.



    Don't worry He will - but not on this evidence.



    I think when He does appear most of the rows will be between the atheists.

    Do you have any tinfoil hats I can buy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »
    Read the whole of Proverbs 16 an don't just take one stanza out of context.

    if you read stanza 3

    "Commit to the Lord whatever you do,and he will establish your plans"

    in conjunction with the 9 you extracted and your argument collapses.

    As for the JW position - it might be worthwhile for you to research why they take that position given there is no support for it in the Bible. That said, anyone enjoying a full Irish is stuffed.

    I could go into the issue of the children but it is complicated by the actions of wealthy atheist capitalists who maintain poverty in many parts of the world.

    You see then we are again at the contradictions, like the blood thingy where JW read out of "Do you eat blood" that blood transfusions are bad. But as you know there are far more of those in the bible, what makes sense when you know how it was written down.
    So it is atheists now what cause the bad in the world? At the end of the 19th century atheists caused a potato blight and caused one million Irish people to die? lol I am quite sure those people prayed for survival and not to test if prayers work, but nothing. Or you have the mistreatment of children in orphanages by catholic personal. Both sides prayed and god decided to help the offenders? Or where those people there also atheists?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »

    What about the stuff you believe in without proof? Or are you going to tell me that you really believe that in the beginning nothing exploded for no good reason and then a bunch of elements randomly reacted and against all the odds of probability sorted themselves into self replicating cells that eventually became all living species on this planet and you are so convinced of it you can prove all of this?


    You see that is where it gets interesting, the Big Bang was postulated and now the scientists try to find better explanations or findings that contradict it. But so far nothing.
    On the opposite side you have a crowd that stated god did it, 6000 years ago or the pope recently 13 billion years ago. And all is written down in this book. Fair enough.
    But let's think for a moment what would happen if all science and religion would disappear at once and we have a fresh and clean start. Science would after some time get back to the exact state of what we know now and E=mc2 would be confirmed by scientists all over the world, while for religion: Which of the 5000 gods, that exist and existed, would become "the one"? Would it still be like if you are European you most likely believe in the bible, if you are in the middle east you most likely believe in the Quran, in north Asia more likely to believe in Buddha or Shiva?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    Firstly absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
    Agreed, not always, but if there is no evidence (if the evidence that would substantiate a claim is absent), why believe in it? Are you saying that you think it rational and logical to be given extraordinary claims, to believe in them, even when the evidence that would justify a belief in them is absent? Okay, there is no evidence for the hindu gods: the evidence is absent. Why not believe in them, or you are special pleading for the christian god?
    Secondly, there are many proofs for the existence of a God who created everything ... the concept of an Ultimate Cause and the evidence for the Intelligent Design of life, to name but two.

    Equally, the fine tuning of the Universe also indicates an intelligence of divine proportions and capacity behind it all.
    I would first ask "Fine tuned for what?" If you say life, read below.
    Below is my logical response to the intelligent design argument (in case you get hung up on when I mention Richard Dawkins, I'm not all that familiar with his work. I've watched only about 2 or 3 of his debates, and none of his books)
    Here's why I say I don't believe in ID (Intelligent Design). It's because, even in the event of the world being ID'd, you can't actually show it.
    When one tries to differentiate one object from another, we typically point out a property that Object A has and that Object B doesn't have. For example, I can point at a circle and a square, and say the circle is not like the square in that the circle does not have corners, like what the square has.
    However, the same cannot be done when one is trying to find evidence for an intelligently designed world.
    Typically, if one wants to say why a particular object he's pointing to is ID'd, and not something natural, he has to contrast it with something that he recognizes as natural and non-designed. Take Richard Dawkin's famous analogy, the watch in the woods. If I pick up a watch while walking in the woods, I can reason out that the watch has been designed, because of two reasons
    1) Not once in the recorded history of humankind has there ever been recorded a watch being made via natural means. Every watch ever seen is known to have been made by humans.
    2) I contrast it with the surroundings, I say that the watch has a property of being designed that it doesn't share with the natural world.

    However, let's take your stance. Let's pretend for the moment, that the world has been ID'd, but not yet proven. You and I take a walk in the woods and you pick up a watch that you find and you say "This is obviously the product of an intelligent mind".
    My response to that is "As compared to what?"
    For you to to be able to make a determination of one object having been the product of an intelligent mind, there must of necessity be at least one object you believe to be not of intelligent design, so that you can compare and contrast them (just like where I compared a square and a circle). However, you cannot do that in a world that is ID'd. According to you, everything is the product of intelligent design. Everything shares this property, therefore the property looks the same in all objects. Therefore, you lack the ability to even imagine what a non-intelligently designed object is.
    Even if the world actually were ID'd, without being able to show it, to give me evidence of such a thing, I have no reason to justify a belief in it. 
    ... and there are further arguments and evidence for God discussed here
    http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/
    Your link fails completely because the very first "proof" it mentions is Pascal's Wager, which is a completely bogus argument. Two main reasons why it's completely ****e
    1) It could only work and make sense in a world that had only the one religion. We don't live in such a world. So if I was to apply P.W., well...which religion? Which god? If I subscribe to a belief in Allah, then how does P.W. protect me from the lack of reward/punishment if I die and I find out the real god is Vishnu? P.W. doesn't even attempt to address the problem of there being many religions in the world.
    2) It's a 'fake it til you make it' proposition, in that there is nothing in P.W. that actually convinces the atheist to believe in whatever god the theist is proposing. In other words, I, the atheist, would be going through the external motions of prayer and worship (externally, I would look likeyour average devout believer), but internally, I don't believe in the teachings. Are you telling me your god would be satisfied with that?
    ... on a more mundane level, near death experiences, provide tantalizing evidence of life beyond death.
    As I'm sure you've been told by others, NEAR death experiences tell us nothing of what happens during ACTUAL death. Plus, for these NDEs to actually support your god claims, they would have to be uniform across the board in terms of what the people report seeing. I've talked to plenty of people: some of them report seeing hindu imagery, some islamic, some christian, and still others report seeing nothing at all (I use the word seeing here in place of the word experiencing).
    Festus wrote:
    If it is there how did it start?
    First off, don't double post, try and keep your responses together.
    Now, as to your question - I haven't a feckin' clue. I'm not going to pretend to have knowledge about things I couldn't possibly have knowledge of. I don't believe there is life out there, I just suspect it, given the vastness of the universe and the extremely high number of galaxies, stars and planets. I would be very surprised indeed if (somehow) we explored the entire universe and discovered that our one planet is indeed the only planet with life - that would mean the rest of the universe is a waste (and the "only Earth has life" belief runs counter to the Intelligent Design of the Universe belief that theists have - how could you call it an intelligent design if the vast overwhelming majority of the universe is wasted space?)
    I have not been able to determine any truth in atheism.
    Again, for the umpteenth time, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That alone does not proclaim or preach any sort of truth.
    So when you say that, you're basically saying "I haven't been able to determine any truth in not being convinced"...and I'm scratching my head as to how you could say that.
    You do realize that humans are limited. the mind can only go so far.
    Since when have I ever posited otherwise? I recognise our limitations. It doesn't give us licence to then posit a belief in an intelligent mind that doesn't share our limitations without evidence.
    I mean what I have said. have your tried properly, wholeheartedly. It is not possible if you are biased.
    Yes I did, when I was a believer. Nothing happened. Again, what you said has the tones of "You didn't believe hard enough!"
    What about the stuff you believe in without proof?
    There are things I believe in without proof yes, simply because those things aren't on the same scale of a god claim. For example, if you tell me you have a dog, I will believe you, simply because the claim doesn't impact me or my life at all if it turns out to be false. Now if you tell me you've discovered or found the one true god and are able to discern his holy book and interpret it correctly and whatnot...that is a different claim altogether.
    Or are you going to tell me that you really believe that in the beginning nothing exploded for no good reason
    Who said I believe in nothing? Kindly point out to me please where once I have said anything to that effect. As for explosion...if you're trying to reference the Big Bang here, research it please. You've just exposed your complete ignorance on the subject, the first piece of evidence for that claim being that it wasn't an explosion!
    As for no good reason, nope. No reason that we have yet been able to discover. To throw in "God is the cause of everything" before we discover that is the logical fallacy of God of the Gaps.
    then a bunch of elements randomly reacted
    Last I checked, nothing in physics or chemistry is random. They all follow their own laws.
    against all the odds of probability sorted themselves into self replicating cells
    You might want to investigate that claim of "against the odds of probability". Myself, I believe that life is more or less inevitable on a planet, as long as you have the right conditions (also notice how none of what you wrote is what I actually believe). Plus saying "odds of probability" only means that something is unlikely to happen, not that it is physically impossible (for example, rolling a 6 sided die, with the numbers 1 through 6, means that it is physically impossible to ever roll a 7 or higher, not just that it is of extremely low probability).
    Here's why. If we take one of the theories of abiogenesis (there are several), then the absolute earliest life began as simple chemical reactions in a pool somewhere on Earth about 3-4 billion years ago. In your view, the probability of life forming on its own is against the odds: once the metaphorical coin is flipped and it comes up negative for life formation, that's it, life can't arise on its own and needs a divine figure to get it started.
    What you're not seeing is that there isn't only the one metaphorical coin flip. There would be countless trillions. The reason being that there would have been countless numbers of these pools of chemicals all throughout the earth, and each and every second of each and every day, a metaphorical coin is flipped to see if life gets started. Eventually, it would come up heads (unless you're going to argue that somehow, this metaphorical coin can never come up heads?) and life gets started. Also, who's to say it only got started in just the one pool? There could have been heads in any number of pools at more or less the same time or at different points during that 3-4 billion year period, for example a pool of chemicals in what would become South America at the 3.14 billion year mark and then a pool in what would become Japan at the 3.12 billion year mark.
    We're you praying for something worthwhile or were you praying to test God?
    Wouldn't these be one and the same? Imagine if I, as a believer, prayed for my aunt's lost limb to spontaneously regrow and it did. That would be both something worthwhile, and serve as evidence to me that prayer works, and as evidence in favour of the god claim.
    You see, I've been there - praying for certain things and it doesn't happen. It doesn't mean God does not exist.
    At the very least, it shows that your god doesn't live up to his promises
    "“Ask, and it shall be given you;"
    Right there in plain text. If someone or some entity says to me he'll give me anything I ever ask for, I just have to ask, and he doesn't follow through with it, then that makes him a liar. Or if I'm not hearing this promise from him directly but only reading about it second/third/fourth hand in an ancient book, then that makes the text false.
    Various governments can alrady control all media devices already so what would that prove.
    That statement would only make sense if you mean all media devices hooked up to the internet. Not all of them are. I have quite a few devices capable of playing audio and video that are not hooked up or are capable of receiving transmissions of any kind. So if one day my Raspberry Pi (look it up) started playing such a video, when I don't have it connected to any sort of network or the internet, then that would cause me to sit up and take note.
    That can be done already too - ebola is an engineered bioweapon and those who engineered it have the cure, so how would that be miraculous?
    Do you have evidence for this claim? Also, do you understand how cures work and are able to be transmitted? What Safehands said was "Ebola would disappear". No government on earth can do that, make a disease disappear at the touch of a button. It takes vast amounts of resources, effort and time to do it (such as when we wiped out smallpox, which took decades of vaccinations).
    So far you haven't even convinced this Catholic. All you have presented is technological magic.
    As opposed to the brand of magic you believe in...
    God wants us to either choose Him or reject Him and that requires free will.
    Two questions
    1) Why does your god even care about this choose/rejection business? Is he lonely?
    2) Why does he designate a punishment for rejection (hell)? If someone rejects me, I don't actively do anything to them. I just leave them alone. I don't send them anywhere or do anything to them. Given that the bible doesn't say anything like that...
    I could go into the issue of the children but it is complicated by the actions of wealthy atheist capitalists who maintain poverty in many parts of the world.
    So what I'm getting at here is that somehow, the actions of wealthy atheist capitalists (how do you know they're atheist? There are plenty of wealthy capitalists who are theists in one religion or another) override or prevent your god from acting to save starving children. So according to you, he's respecting the free will of the atheist capitalist...by allowing them to allow children to starve.
    Stand up guy.
    Here's a video on that very topic I like.


    I also have to add that this isn't consistent with the bible. In the bible, there is the story of Jesus magicking up loaves and fish to feed a crowd of hungry people. I'm pretty sure that some of the wealthy farmers and merchants didn't like that and would have done something to stop it (again, the question arises of how could mere humans stop a god-man from magicking food out of thin air). So should Jesus have respected the free will of the merchants and allowed them to continue selling food at exorbitant prices or did he magic fish and loaves to feed the crowd? Also if God doesn't do miracles in order to respect people's free will...hello! The bible is nothing BUT a collection of stories of him doing JUST THAT, to give people a reason to worship him!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »

    First off, don't double post, try and keep your responses together.

    Back seat modding and bullying tone noted.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Again, for the umpteenth time, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That alone does not proclaim or preach any sort of truth.

    No truth in atheism you say. I'll take you at your word on that.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Last I checked, nothing in physics or chemistry is random. They all follow their own laws

    Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying.

    If life is a combination of physics and chemistry what laws led to it starting? Please note that to have biology you have to have life. Before there was life on this planet there was no biology, just physics and chemistry and if nothing is random and we know the laws how did life start?

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    As opposed to the brand of magic you believe in...

    Left in as an example of the bullying tonality
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Two questions
    1) Why does your god even care about this choose/rejection business? Is he lonely?

    He created us to know Him. But again I note the bullying and belittling tone.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    2) Why does he designate a punishment for rejection (hell)? If someone rejects me, I don't actively do anything to them. I just leave them alone. I don't send them anywhere or do anything to them. Given that the bible doesn't say anything like that...

    God does the same. He leaves them alone. Souls who reject God cannot stand His presence and so move as far away from Him as possible. Unfortunately that is the same place occupied by demons and devils and Satan.


    I've not responded to everything you posted because my time is limited and some things are not worth dignifying.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote:
    Snip
    I'd love to note where and how I'm "bullying" you. Do you even know what it is to bully? Me saying to you "Don't double post" is merely a quick and easy piece of advice to you to keep your responses together for easy reading (and so the mods don't have to fix it themselves, which they inevitably will). I am not making any kind of threats to you whatsoever.
    As for what I said about atheism, it is a response to a claim. Person A says "This thing is true" (making a positive claim). The atheist says "I'm not convinced" (rejecting the positive claim). Note that here the atheist is NOT making a positive claim themselves. There is no truth or falsehood for one to reject. I can say as an atheist that I have never been able to determine any truth in theism and I would be CORRECT in every sense, since I am, at this moment in time, in a state of not being convinced. I have not been able to determine any truth in the positive claim of a god.
    As for wondering how life began, ask a biologist for in an indepth answer.
    As for my comment about your brand of magic somehow having a bullying tone...that was me pointing out the hypocrisy of you dismissing someone else's claim because you believe it to contain a belief in "technological magic" (i.e. you dismiss a claim because it involves magic, i.e. something that happens that violate the laws of physics)...yet your religion, your belief, involves magic anyway (what else is "Let there be light" but a magical incantation?).

    As for your god leaving us alone...nope
    Revelation 2:21-22 "I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. 22 Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings;"
    Revelation 14:9-11 "9 Then another angel, a third, followed them, crying with a loud voice, “Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, 10 they will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”"
    In other words, if one does not worship your god, he will cause bad things to happen to them.
    Also I have to ask another question. Why must it be that unbelievers who are not followers of the devil are then put in the same place as the devil? Why doesn't your god just leave the devil and his demons where they are, have paradise for his followers and a different place for non-believers?
    Oh wait, I forgot, because non-belief is a sin and sinners must be punished. I have to remember that.

    (Revelation 14:9 is hilarious, because it talks about those who worship the devil and receive a mark on their foreheads...whereas in previous chapters it talks about your god's elect, the 144,000...who ALSO receive a mark on their foreheads. So it's basically tribal thinking, us vs them, Red vs Blue going on here).


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Harika wrote: »
    You see that is where it gets interesting, the Big Bang was postulated and now the scientists try to find better explanations or findings that contradict it. But so far nothing.

    if there is nothing else let's accept the Big Bang. What caused it and why? These are reasonable questions and scientific too.

    Given that there is nothing before time there is no gap so you cannot plead the god of the gaps fallacy.
    Harika wrote: »
    On the opposite side you have a crowd that stated god did it, 6000 years ago or the pope recently 13 billion years ago. And all is written down in this book. Fair enough.

    Consider it a poetic description of how we came to be. Universe created, then planets and stars, then life. That's it in a nutshell and the Bible has not contradicted science.
    Harika wrote: »
    But let's think for a moment what would happen if all science and religion would disappear at once and we have a fresh and clean start. Science would after some time get back to the exact state of what we know now and E=mc2 would be confirmed by scientists all over the world, while for religion: Which of the 5000 gods, that exist and existed, would become "the one"? Would it still be like if you are European you most likely believe in the bible, if you are in the middle east you most likely believe in the Quran, in north Asia more likely to believe in Buddha or Shiva?

    Lets look at the evidence that says that man is predisposed to look for God. I've posted a link to a science20 article that supports this contention from an atheist perspective.

    Now lets look at the fact that you reference 5000 gods that "exist and existed". You could have said "the 5000 gods that people have believed in over the eons", but you didn't - you stated "5000 gods that exist and existed". So I take it you accept that God exists and different cultures have either called Him by different names or have collections of demi gods born from their mythology. No need for a response, I'm just pointing that out to you.

    if man is genetically programmed to seek God, as science says we are, then surely science should be able to answer the question as to whether man is seeking many gods or one God.

    Just for clarity the article is focused on thought processes and while theologians would argue the soul, the scientist will blame biology for our consciousness which is why I say "genetically programmed". If there is a better way to describe the source of our consciousness that is acceptable to the atheistic that's fine.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C remember when you gave me that philosophy of religion link, why did you give it to me?
    Did you give it to me because you agree with everything in it and you were saying "This is what I believe and why"?
    If so, what about this little gem I found when reading through it?
    "One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him."
    Does that not jump out at you as something obviously incorrect?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I'd love to note where and how I'm "bullying" you. Do you even know what it is to bully?

    I've been bullied and I recognise the attack methodology. and there's that video.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Me saying to you "Don't double post" is merely a quick and easy piece of advice to you to keep your responses together for easy reading (and so the mods don't have to fix it themselves, which they inevitably will). I am not making any kind of threats to you whatsoever.

    Perhaps not but you are back seat modding - again!
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    As for what I said about atheism, it is a response to a claim. Person A says "This thing is true" (making a positive claim). The atheist says "I'm not convinced" (rejecting the positive claim). Note that here the atheist is NOT making a positive claim themselves. There is no truth or falsehood for one to reject.

    If there is no truth or falsehood what is being debated? the debate is "God Exists" and for the theologian this is truth. If you believe this to be a lie you should be able to prove that. If for you the case is merely a lack of belief why do you waste so much time on it?

    But I disagree with your assertion and suggest that atheists are rejecting the positive claim, and hence rejecting God if person A is talking about God in a positive sense.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »

    As for wondering how life began, ask a biologist for in an indepth answer.

    I have and there is no answer unless you believe in unsubstantiated abiogenesis, which many atheists do, even though it is unsubstantiated.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    (what else is "Let there be light" but a magical incantation?)

    mocking the Bible and God are you?
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    In other words, if one does not worship your god, he will cause bad things to happen to them.

    you've taken it out of context
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Also I have to ask another question. Why must it be that unbelievers who are not followers of the devil are then put in the same place as the devil?

    it's not just unbelievers, its all sinners who die with sins that cannot be purged after death. And I answered that already, they go there because it is less painful than being in God's presence.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Why doesn't your god just leave the devil and his demons where they are, have paradise for his followers and a different place for non-believers?
    Oh wait, I forgot, because non-belief is a sin and sinners must be punished. I have to remember that.

    More belitteling...
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    (Revelation 14:9 is hilarious, because it talks about those who worship the devil and receive a mark on their foreheads...whereas in previous chapters it talks about your god's elect, the 144,000...who ALSO receive a mark on their foreheads. So it's basically tribal thinking, us vs them going on here).

    I really don't think you are that interested in finding out about God. You cannot prove He does not exist, you can barely support your case without resorting to asinine cliche and snide comments. you seem to take pleasure in mocking the beliefs of others. I'm used to that with other atheists. I guess you're not that unique after all.

    I'm done.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote:
    "If you believe this to be a lie you should be able to prove that."
    Which I do when you say "This thing (God) is true, here are the reasons I give for why I believe it to be true" and I examine the reasons you've given and find them to be incorrect.
    For example, when J C posted that link earlier which has the line of "One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him."
    When I examine that reason and find all sorts of problems with it, I have proven that the reason is incorrect and thus, for that person, their expressed justifications are false and in the end, they don't have any rational reason for their belief.
    I don't have to prove God false in the absolute sense to be an atheist (i.e. examining the entire universe and finding no god). To be an atheist, all I have to do is examine the claims given to me by theists and find problems and errors within them. Once I do, I have no logical reason to subscribe to that belief.

    As for you're seeing bullying when someone merely critiques the reasons you give for what it is you believe in...I'll leave that as it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »
    if there is nothing else let's accept the Big Bang. What caused it and why? These are reasonable questions and scientific too.

    Given that there is nothing before time there is no gap so you cannot plead the god of the gaps fallacy.

    We will quite possible know what caused it as we cannot travel back in time to observe it. So will we use god here again? The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

    If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.

    So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.

    On the other hand it could already be shown that sub particles can be created out of the nothing while philosophers can confirm that if there is the absolute something there has to be the absolute nothing. Anyway as stated before we might never be able to find it out exactly.
    Festus wrote: »
    Lets look at the evidence that says that man is predisposed to look for God. I've posted a link to a science20 article that supports this contention from an atheist perspective.

    I read the science20 article and in the first sentence it is already wrong as it states that Dawkins maybe convinced that God does not exist, this is utterly wrong as here and everywhere has been shown. I won't go into detail as this has shown on this or the last page already. (not by me) Also Dawkins states this in his book "The god delusion".
    What the guy then misses next is to show which scientists show that atheists might not exist, there is no link to this study, so basically it is his thesis, hidden behind scientists. (I always have to think here on the advertisement "Chinese scientists discover super medicine that heals everything") There is btw a very good article refuting the science20 claims. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.c0m/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/
    Festus wrote: »

    Now lets look at the fact that you reference 5000 gods that "exist and existed". You could have said "the 5000 gods that people have believed in over the eons", but you didn't - you stated "5000 gods that exist and existed". So I take it you accept that God exists and different cultures have either called Him by different names or have collections of demi gods born from their mythology. No need for a response, I'm just pointing that out to you.

    Thank you for pointing out that it is a game about semantics. :)

    Festus wrote: »
    if man is genetically programmed to seek God, as science says we are, then surely science should be able to answer the question as to whether man is seeking many gods or one God.

    Just for clarity the article is focused on thought processes and while theologians would argue the soul, the scientist will blame biology for our consciousness which is why I say "genetically programmed". If there is a better way to describe the source of our consciousness that is acceptable to the atheistic that's fine.

    To clarify: Science has not confirmed than humans are wired to seek god, that is only the idea of a science writer, stuck in a hypothesis of himself, and even that has been refuted as shown.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Harika, the link you gave for the rebuttal of the science20 article doesn't work. For some reason, the O in wordpress dot com was changed to a zero 0. So you'll want to edit that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Festus wrote: »
    If that offends you I will desist.

    I have no recollection of experiencing offence, let alone expressing any. Perhaps you are mixing me up with another user.
    Festus wrote: »
    me too

    Yet the thread indicates otherwise in that you appear to subscribe to an entirely unsubstantiated claim RE: The existence of a god. There is simply no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer (much less from you) to suggest there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
    Festus wrote: »
    while your response to that is comprehensive I'm not interested mainly because there are others here who are not interested

    Your dodge of my post is due to the behavior of people who are not me? Are you even trying to make sense???

    And the truth of this claim appears to be lacking given you have been dodging my post and replying at length to those of others.
    Festus wrote: »
    here is a link to a source for the argument for the non-existence of atheists

    Not the topic of this thread. And as I said I am happy to take you to the AGM of Atheist Ireland next year and introduce you to the very people you nonsensically assert do not exist. Something tells me you will be doing nothing of this sort with evidence for your god however.
    Festus wrote: »
    My evidence, or rather the evidence I have, only covers God

    Until such time as you get around to presenting it, we can not agree or disagree with this assertion.
    Festus wrote: »
    I believe an God but cannot prove He exists. That does not negate His existence.

    Nor does it establish it, and you have made no move to do so. There is nothing TO negate in other words. Just your assertion.
    Festus wrote: »
    You do not believe in God but cannot prove the He does not exist.

    Nor are we required to. This has been explained to you already. You simply choose to ignore/dodge it.
    Festus wrote: »
    Are you suggesting there is a conflict between faith and science or religion and science?

    In many ways there is yes. Religion works on the "god of the gaps" principle for the most part. That is religious claims tend to occupy that space of human ignorance. Since science is closing slowly the areas of human ignorance, it is directly in conflict with religion as it is eroding and taking the very land from under it and eroding the play ground in which it operates.
    Festus wrote: »
    I'm not going back and forth, I am stating my case. I have evidence which satisfies my faith

    Then you are soap boxing and likely in the wrong thread. This is a debate thread to discuss the evidence and arguments. Simply stating that you have convinced yourself based on evidence you can not and will never offer..... is just soap boxing and not in the spirit of the discussion.
    Festus wrote: »
    I have. do you believe aliens exist?

    I have no "belief" on the matter. As with all things I place it on a probability continuum based on the data set we have.

    And the data set we do have is suggestive that such a thing is at least likely. I would say no more than that.
    Festus wrote: »
    Which God?

    Not sure we need to be overly specific about that until such time as the god claim gets off the ground _at all_.

    For the purposes of this thread I would define "god" as "A non-human intelligence and intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

    That definition fits Christianity, Islam and the monotheism in general.

    And substantiation of the existence of such an entity is something you have not only failed to offer, but pretty much dodged offering with no small quantity of fervor.
    Festus wrote: »
    I have not been able to determine any truth in atheism.

    The claim is that there is no evidence on offer for your god and there is no reason on offer to think there is one.

    In reality there is no evidence on offer for god and no reason on offer to think there is one.

    So what part of this truth are you having trouble establishing? Seems 100% true to me.
    Festus wrote: »
    What about the stuff you believe in without proof?

    By all means tell me something you think I subscribe to without any substantiation. Anything?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,331 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    II don't understand why you'd even ask for "evidence" in the first place.

    Do you have similar trouble understanding why someone on a thread about recipies for cookies.... might ask someone for a recipe for cookies?

    It is what the thread is ABOUT. What is hard to understand about that?
    Besides, I sense that nothing a theist could ever say in this matter would make you go "Oh, I see where you're coming from...."

    I do not think that is a fair or true expectation on your part. Alas however until such time as one of the theist cohort actually do present arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god..... we have no way to know for sure. All you CAN do is sit around ruminating on how we MIGHT act were it to happen.
    so why pressure someone to convince and defend if you don't enter with an open mind? :confused:

    Alas these conversations all too often descend into people suggesting someone does not have an "open mind" when in fact there is nothing on offer to be "open minded" about!!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Harika wrote: »
    We will quite possible know what caused it as we cannot travel back in time to observe it. So will we use god here again? The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

    If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.

    So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.

    have you taken time out of the equation? If you do, and you have to because both time and the universe came into existence and the same time (no pun intended), then there is no issue. God exists outside of Time. God created Time. or from your point view there was no time and hence no need for the creator to have a cause.
    Harika wrote: »
    On the other hand it could already be shown that sub particles can be created out of the nothing while philosophers can confirm that if there is the absolute something there has to be the absolute nothing. Anyway as stated before we might never be able to find it out exactly.

    sub particles perhaps in a universe where time and other stuff we may not yet know about already exists but we're talking an entire universe here.

    Harika wrote: »
    I read the science20 article and in the first sentence it is already wrong as it states that Dawkins maybe convinced that God does not exist, this is utterly wrong as here and everywhere has been shown. I won't go into detail as this has shown on this or the last page already. (not by me) Also Dawkins states this in his book "The god delusion".

    Perhaps you do not understand the language of science. The operative term is "may" (and in the article it is "may be", not "maybe". This is the wiggle room and I accept that even Dawkins may not be 100% on God he is still an atheist. So the article is not wrong from the start.

    Harika wrote: »
    What the guy then misses next is to show which scientists show that atheists might not exist, there is no link to this study, so basically it is his thesis, hidden behind scientists. (I always have to think here on the advertisement "Chinese scientists discover super medicine that heals everything") There is btw a very good article refuting the science20 claims. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.c0m/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/

    Well, the scientists names are provided so it is not entirely hidden.

    BTW, the link doesn't work. I trust this one does

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b3EP4pB_3E


    Harika wrote: »

    Thank you for pointing out that it is a game about semantics. :)

    Thank you for your charity :)


    Harika wrote: »
    To clarify: Science has not confirmed than humans are wired to seek god, that is only the idea of a science writer, stuck in a hypothesis of himself, and even that has been refuted as shown.

    I disagree, as shown, and I suspect that your comment may annoy some scientists and science writers. It is not the first time this idea has been proposed so it might be worth researching the scientists who are actively working on this idea.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Alas these conversations all too often descend into people suggesting someone does not have an "open mind" when in fact there is nothing on offer to be "open minded" about!!

    is it not a bit narrow minded to be looking for irrefutable evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote:
    "have you taken time out of the equation? If you do, and you have to because both time and the universe came into existence and the same time (no pun intended), then there is no issue. God exists outside of Time. God created Time. or from your point view there was no time and hence no need for the creator to have a cause."
    Do you honestly not see this as moving the goalposts? Centuries ago, when god was first posited, he was claimed to live in heaven, and heaven was thought to equal the sky.
    Fast forward to the first hot air balloon flight and later the first airplane, and humans find out that the sky does not contain a god.
    So the goalposts are moved, this time to...outside of time?
    First off, for things that are in the set, "Things that Exist", they are all within space-time. We have no evidence whatsoever for things that exist that are outside of time. If you have evidence for this mysterious realm outside of space-time, then please share it (which you won't do for some reason)
    Plus this great quote from Dan Barker
    "The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."

    "the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice."
    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

    Festus, I'm leaving now, will be back in a few hours. If you want to read the link Harika gave you (the rebuttal to your science20 article) change the zero 0 in wordpress dot com in the URL to the letter oh O.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement