Grayson wrote: » There is so much wrong with that. You say that our universe is expanding into "Space" that exists outside it and then say that it's true nothingness. Which one is it?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » And why don't you believe in a God? can you give me a good reason why?
Grayson wrote: » we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from?
Grayson wrote: » Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.
Grayson wrote: » But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.
Grayson wrote: » 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. yep. God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.
Grayson wrote: » I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that I may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)
Defender OF Faith wrote: » When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death. When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men. Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention. We have however two options regarding these individuals #1)They were dishonest people and mad men #2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Can we have J C back instead? At least he was capable of articulating his nonsense in a somewhat coherent manner.
J C wrote: » God is outside of man-made religions ... He will give each person (of all religions and none) the choice of being Saved or not ... of choosing eternal spiritual life or not.
J C wrote: » The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm assuming you're taking the piss at this point but just in case; you literally say it right there. You say god came from nothing right after saying nothing can come from nothing. It's taking moving the goalposts to a whole new level. 'Your thing can't come from nothing, but my thing can. If you want to discuss this on a serious level you're going to have to do so on a level playing field with stationary goalposts, and stop throwing a huff and refusing to read posts every time someone points out a gaping hole in your argument. Can we have J C back instead? At least he was capable of articulating his nonsense in a somewhat coherent manner.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » There is a third option you left out, and if you were intellectually honest you would consider it: 3) The whole Mohammed myth was created as a post hoc justification for the conquest and to shore up the legitimacy of the caliphate c.100 years after it happened. Most of the persons and events depicted are either syncretic borrowings from other religions, or mythologised accounts of much different events. And if you were intellectually honest to consider it properly, you would have to conclude that option three is by far the most likely event. As a species we love telling stories and our stories get bigger with each telling, you just have to look at the founding myths and culture heros of so many cultures and nations, e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Tain and the Fianna cycles, the Beowulf epic, the founding myth of Rome, the Illiad and Oddysey to see that the whole of the Mohammed mythos follows the same path and is the same style of retroactive cultural aggrandisement and cementing as these other founding myths.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I think something my seriously be impeding your ability to you read and understand if this is to difficult for you simply ignore it. " the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe? a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing." I explained why a god can come from nothing however you seem to be reluctant to show me the flaw with my explanation and logic
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » FFS. 'Because God' is not an explanation. If you are stating that nothing can come from nothing then logically that must include God. Unless you're stating that God isn't a thing, in which case you've proven, using your own logic, that he doesn't exist.
SW wrote: » that's some wonderful circular logic: "God is the uncreated creator of everything and asking what is the cause of the first cause is flawed because it's God". I would say it's flawed thinking not to question what created God or why does it have to be God as the explanation for everything. If someone isn't religious, it makes no sense to just accept the biblical account for the origin of reality.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » "God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god"
Uncle Ruckus wrote: » I'm sorry but that's a joke of an argument. You justify the need for a deity by claiming a deity is necessary as a first cause to explain the existence of the Universe. By that logic a deity needs a first cause. If a deity can come from nothing, as you claim, then by your logic the same can apply to the Universe.
Uncle Ruckus wrote: » Moreover, going by your username I'm assuming the deity you believe to have created the Universe is the Judeo-Christian Deity-Yaweh/Jehovah, which makes your claim even more absurd.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » That's exactly why is it flawed because it's god and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Yet you also say nothing can come from nothing. Your claims are completely contradictory.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I think statements like this are proof we definitely weren't designed by anything intelligent.
SW wrote: » and that's why it's circular reasoning. It does nothing to prove or support your claim. You could easily say all the Greek/Roman/Indian etc. gods exist because the first gods had no creator.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'm noticing a trend with the creationists in this thread: they ask people to point out flaws in their logic, then when people inevitably do, they just pretend it never happened. Sound arguing tactic. a) I think that's pretty rich coming from the person whose entire argument is 'god because god'. b) Not at all, look through my posts in this thread. I was born a Catholic and would believe there was a God if the evidence was there. It isn't though, no matter how much you want it to be.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Lets take a look at the definition of a god "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?". I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated. Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Lets take a look at the definition of a god "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Lets take a look at the definition of a god "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." And hence by this very definition God is something that's uncreated so it's irrational to ask the question "who created God?".
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
I don't understand what you meant by saying that all the Roman etc. gods exist because the first god had no creator?
housetypeb wrote: » Where did you get the idea that he's "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Cited from Oxford dictionary the definition of Godhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God
god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
Defender OF Faith wrote: » You never did point out a single flaw in my logic instead you kept going in circles about how if everything had a cause then what created god and I have said that God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?
SW wrote: » let us use actual definitions, rather than one that suits you. god: so there we go, Zeus is a god, Thor is a god on so on. you stated that because God doesn't require a creator, he must exist. There are alpha generations of gods in various mythologies. By your own rules, Roman/Greek/Indian etc. gods must also exist.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Who needs logic when you have blind faith, eh?
