The Christian Tithe ripoff.

[Mudda]

...Can't be any fairer than that. If I get burned for eternity for that, well, then I have to conclude that god is a total idiot....

Do you remember the scene in Batman with Morgan Freeman? The one where this employee walks up and says he has figured out that Bruce Wayne was batman and he was going to extort him for money to keep his secret? Do you remember what Morgan Freeman said to him? Your conversation with God where you tell Him what an idiot He is for not giving you enough information to believe in Him is going to be very similar to that. Now, do you really believe that is a good plan?

I didn't watch any Batmans, lol. Please try again.

 

[ding]

So would you accept something He created as evidence?

If you can prove that "He" created it.

What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"? Answer or lose all credibility.

Let me flip that around, If you can't prove He didn't create it why would you dismiss it as possible evidence. When police investigate a murder scene they examine all evidence. They don't know who left it, but they still regard it as evidence. They use reason and logic to figure out what the evidence means. Basically, you would like to skip that process and go straight to dismissing the evidence.

I'm an agnostic, I don't think that the existence of a god has been proven either way to exist or to not exist. There is simply not enough real, concrete evidence to confirm any of this. That's why atheists are deluded as well, because there's also no proof that a god CAN'T exist. So the only logical position is to be an agnostic, i.e., we see no proof either way, and personally, if I ever get real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that. If I get burned for eternity for that, well, then I have to conclude that god is an total idiot.

Based on my observations of your comments in our discussions, I don't believe you are not agnostic. Be honest.

But there is evidence. Mind you I'm not saying it proves His existence. I am saying that if He does exist, then evidence can be found through reason and your own experience. Humor me and I'll show you. Answer these questions honestly and you may become agnostic.

When you create something, can that creation be used as evidence?

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? In other words if you set out to make a cell phone do you end up making a turkey dinner?

When you create something, do you do it in steps? Or does it just magically appear?

Do more complex creations require more steps? Does it take more steps to create a cell phone than it does a turkey dinner?

Do more complex creations require intelligence? Is more inetlligence required to make a cell phone than a turkey dinner?

Can I learn anything about you by your creation?

Can I learn how many steps you had to take?

Can I learn what your level of intelligence was from what you created?

Can I learn what the purpose of your creation was?

So let's say I found something and did not know who made it, could I not analyze what I found and learn something from it. Isn't this what police do when they investigate a crime scene?

"So let's say I found something and did not know who made it". So you're admitting that you don't know who made the universe? Good for you, you're heading in the right direction.

"When you create something, do you do it in steps? Or does it just magically appear?" One of the things I do is that I'm a songwriter and songs just come to me, sometimes in steps/over days, sometimes just like that, magically, if you will.

"Do more complex creations require more steps? Does it take more steps to create a cell phone than it does a turkey dinner?" A turkey dinner is a complex thing to make, grow the food and animal... transport... it might be easier to make a cell phone, lol. So, no.

"Do more complex creations require intelligence?" Probably. "Is more inetlligence required to make a cell phone than a turkey dinner?" probably not. We went to the moon with less computing power than it takes to send an email.

"Can I learn anything about you by your creation?" About as much as you can learn about Picasso by looking at his paintings, which isn't much.

"Can I learn how many steps you had to take?" No.

"Can I learn what your level of intelligence was from what you created?" Possibly, but someone extremely intelligent might paint like a chimp.

"Can I learn what the purpose of your creation was?" No always.

See this is how I know that you are not agnostic. You keep putting words in my mouth that I didn't write. It would be really nice in the future if you would just ask me instead of making assumptions that I have to correct. It will save us both time and resources.

Do I know who created the universe? To the best of my ability I do. Would I bet my life on it? Let me answer that like this: I wouldn't bet my life on anything, but this is the lone exception. So, yes, I'd bet my life on it and I have. Why? Because I have done my due diligence and have seen Him work miracles in my life and the lives of those I love. You may not call them miracles, but I would. I have become a totally different person because of my relationship with Him and I have seen the benefits in not only myself, but also my family.

Let me turn this around on you now. Your statement implies that someone created the universe. Additionally, how has your "agnosticism" made your life and the lives of the ones you love better?

Being a songwriter, I am surprised that you are not more receptive to God's spirit within you. When people create, they are tapping into that inner spirit within. But regardless, your lyrics do come sequentially. You may write one section before another, or even come up with lyrics within a section in a different order, but your final creation is a sequential order of steps. It wouldn't work any other way. There is a correct or better or maybe even best order.

So, you really want to argue that simple creations are more complex than complex creations? Let me ask it differently... what is the rule and what is the exception? For the purpose of this discussion let's not define the rule by exception, ok? Do you want to change your answer?

Same thing about the next question. As a rule can we learn things about you from your creations? Let's take your music? Can I learn if you are talented? Can I learn if you have passion? Do you believe that people can listen to your songs and learn about what kind of person you are? Do you believe your intelligence will shine through in your songs? Can I not hear a catchy phrase and learn the depth of your character? Do you want to change your answer?

So when one builds a house we can't write down the sequential order of the what was done? Again, I am going to ask you if you are defining the rule as the rule or as the exception. If it is the latter, I doubt you are agnostic.

 

[ding]

...Can't be any fairer than that. If I get burned for eternity for that, well, then I have to conclude that god is a total idiot....

Do you remember the scene in Batman with Morgan Freeman? The one where this employee walks up and says he has figured out that Bruce Wayne was batman and he was going to extort him for money to keep his secret? Do you remember what Morgan Freeman said to him? Your conversation with God where you tell Him what an idiot He is for not giving you enough information to believe in Him is going to be very similar to that. Now, do you really believe that is a good plan?

I didn't watch any Batmans, lol. Please try again.

Never mind. If you can't project how it will go when you tell an omnipotent being how he is an idiot and made a mistake, I doubt anything I say will make a difference.

 

[Mudda]

If you can prove that "He" created it.

What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"? Answer or lose all credibility.

Let me flip that around, If you can't prove He didn't create it why would you dismiss it as possible evidence. When police investigate a murder scene they examine all evidence. They don't know who left it, but they still regard it as evidence. They use reason and logic to figure out what the evidence means. Basically, you would like to skip that process and go straight to dismissing the evidence.

I'm an agnostic, I don't think that the existence of a god has been proven either way to exist or to not exist. There is simply not enough real, concrete evidence to confirm any of this. That's why atheists are deluded as well, because there's also no proof that a god CAN'T exist. So the only logical position is to be an agnostic, i.e., we see no proof either way, and personally, if I ever get real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that. If I get burned for eternity for that, well, then I have to conclude that god is an total idiot.

Based on my observations of your comments in our discussions, I don't believe you are not agnostic. Be honest.

But there is evidence. Mind you I'm not saying it proves His existence. I am saying that if He does exist, then evidence can be found through reason and your own experience. Humor me and I'll show you. Answer these questions honestly and you may become agnostic.

When you create something, can that creation be used as evidence?

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? In other words if you set out to make a cell phone do you end up making a turkey dinner?

When you create something, do you do it in steps? Or does it just magically appear?

Do more complex creations require more steps? Does it take more steps to create a cell phone than it does a turkey dinner?

Do more complex creations require intelligence? Is more inetlligence required to make a cell phone than a turkey dinner?

Can I learn anything about you by your creation?

Can I learn how many steps you had to take?

Can I learn what your level of intelligence was from what you created?

Can I learn what the purpose of your creation was?

So let's say I found something and did not know who made it, could I not analyze what I found and learn something from it. Isn't this what police do when they investigate a crime scene?

"So let's say I found something and did not know who made it". So you're admitting that you don't know who made the universe? Good for you, you're heading in the right direction.

"When you create something, do you do it in steps? Or does it just magically appear?" One of the things I do is that I'm a songwriter and songs just come to me, sometimes in steps/over days, sometimes just like that, magically, if you will.

"Do more complex creations require more steps? Does it take more steps to create a cell phone than it does a turkey dinner?" A turkey dinner is a complex thing to make, grow the food and animal... transport... it might be easier to make a cell phone, lol. So, no.

"Do more complex creations require intelligence?" Probably. "Is more inetlligence required to make a cell phone than a turkey dinner?" probably not. We went to the moon with less computing power than it takes to send an email.

"Can I learn anything about you by your creation?" About as much as you can learn about Picasso by looking at his paintings, which isn't much.

"Can I learn how many steps you had to take?" No.

"Can I learn what your level of intelligence was from what you created?" Possibly, but someone extremely intelligent might paint like a chimp.

"Can I learn what the purpose of your creation was?" No always.

See this is how I know that you are not agnostic. You keep putting words in my mouth that I didn't write. It would be really nice in the future if you would just ask me instead of making assumptions that I have to correct. It will save us both time and resources.

Do I know who created the universe? To the best of my ability I do. Would I bet my life on it? Let me answer that like this: I wouldn't bet my life on anything, but this is the lone exception. So, yes, I'd bet my life on it and I have. Why? Because I have done my due diligence and have seen Him work miracles in my life and the lives of those I love. You may not call them miracles, but I would. I have become a totally different person because of my relationship with Him and I have seen the benefits in not only myself, but also my family.

Let me turn this around on you now. Your statement implies that someone created the universe. Additionally, how has your "agnosticism" made your life and the lives of the ones you love better?

Being a songwriter, I am surprised that you are not more receptive to God's spirit within you. When people create, they are tapping into that inner spirit within. But regardless, your lyrics do come sequentially. You may write one section before another, or even come up with lyrics within a section in a different order, but your final creation is a sequential order of steps. It wouldn't work any other way. There is a correct or better or maybe even best order.

So, you really want to argue that simple creations are more complex than complex creations? Let me ask it differently... what is the rule and what is the exception? For the purpose of this discussion let's not define the rule by exception, ok? Do you want to change your answer?

Same thing about the next question. As a rule can we learn things about you from your creations? Let's take your music? Can I learn if you are talented? Can I learn if you have passion? Do you believe that people can listen to your songs and learn about what kind of person you are? Do you believe your intelligence will shine through in your songs? Can I not hear a catchy phrase and learn the depth of your character? Do you want to change your answer?

So when one builds a house we can't write down the sequential order of the what was done? Again, I am going to ask you if you are defining the rule as the rule or as the exception. If it is the latter, I doubt you are agnostic.

You simply like living in a dream world where you're convinced that an invisible superbeing rules, and if you don't obey some arbitrary rules written up by men, that you'll burn in a fire forever. I've made my life and my family's life better by not living it based on fairy tales, because that's what the bible is. You haven't proven one single thing about your invisibly friend, and if you ever care to, I'm here.

"Being a songwriter, I am surprised that you are not more receptive to God's spirit within you. When people create, they are tapping into that inner spirit within. But regardless, your lyrics do come sequentially. You may write one section before another, or even come up with lyrics within a section in a different order, but your final creation is a sequential order of steps. It wouldn't work any other way. There is a correct or better or maybe even best order. " No, there is no best, better or correct order. It's like scoring a goal, it doesn't really matter how it got in the net, just that it did, and there's no proper way to score a goal, any puck that goes in is the proper way.

"So, you really want to argue that simple creations are more complex than complex creations?" Maybe I'm not getting what you're getting at here, because more complex things are more complex. What's the relevance?

"As a rule can we learn things about you from your creations? Let's take your music? Can I learn if you are talented? Can I learn if you have passion? Do you believe that people can listen to your songs and learn about what kind of person you are? Do you believe your intelligence will shine through in your songs? Can I not hear a catchy phrase and learn the depth of your character?"
Sometimes the smartest people in music write the simplest, dumbest songs. But you don't learn much about the composer from a song.

"So when one builds a house we can't write down the sequential order of the what was done?"
Yes, but some things like art have no sequential rules.

 

[Mudda]

...Can't be any fairer than that. If I get burned for eternity for that, well, then I have to conclude that god is a total idiot....

Do you remember the scene in Batman with Morgan Freeman? The one where this employee walks up and says he has figured out that Bruce Wayne was batman and he was going to extort him for money to keep his secret? Do you remember what Morgan Freeman said to him? Your conversation with God where you tell Him what an idiot He is for not giving you enough information to believe in Him is going to be very similar to that. Now, do you really believe that is a good plan?

I didn't watch any Batmans, lol. Please try again.

Never mind. If you can't project how it will go when you tell an omnipotent being how he is an idiot and made a mistake, I doubt anything I say will make a difference.

Now, as before, you just have to prove that your "omnipotent being" exists. You haven't proven it, your omnipotent being friend hasn't proven itself either. So I'm supposed to live my life by what someone invisible and unproven says by way of some men's writings? Man, that's fucked up.

 

[ding]

You simply like living in a dream world where you're convinced that an invisible superbeing rules, and if you don't obey some arbitrary rules written up by men, that you'll burn in a fire forever.

I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

I've made my life and my family's life better by not living it based on fairy tales, because that's what the bible is.

I think that is great, I really do, but we are discussing a path not traveled. You can only make a proper comparison between the two after you have traveled both.

You haven't proven one single thing about your invisibly friend, and if you ever care to, I'm here.

As I have already said, I'm not trying to prove anything about [my] "invisible" friend. We are discussing IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence. I thought you were agnostic. Have you changed your mind about that?

No, there is no best, better or correct order. It's like scoring a goal, it doesn't really matter how it got in the net, just that it did, and there's no proper way to score a goal, any puck that goes in is the proper way.

So you could just put any old chord progression and change keys willy-nilly? No. I don't think so. Music, like mathematics doesn't work that way.

Maybe I'm not getting what you're getting at here, because more complex things are more complex. What's the relevance?

The relevance is that as a rule, the greater the complexity something is, the more steps and intelligence required to make it. This is self evident.

Sometimes the smartest people in music write the simplest, dumbest songs. But you don't learn much about the composer from a song.

Sure, but here again you are pointing at the exception rather than the rule. In the case of music or art or anything that requires creative skills over technical skills, The artists with the most talent will be the ones that can pull off the greatest works, just like in the technical realm, the most intelligent ones are the ones that pull of the most complex works. This is all common sense and should be self evident.

Yes, but some things like art have no sequential rules.

Sure. Some art like abstract art for instance, but most art requires a tremendous talent to pull off. But here again you are pointing at the exception rather than the rule. It looks like to me you are looking for ways to confirm your bias that there can be no evidence for a Creator, when in reality, IF there is a Creator, His Creation is the evidence.

 

[ding]

Now, as before, you just have to prove that your "omnipotent being" exists. You haven't proven it, your omnipotent being friend hasn't proven itself either.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I am trying to explain to you that IF God exists and IF He created the universe, everything inside of the universe could be used as evidence. One would think someone who claimed to be agnostic, would start looking at the evidence a little more closely. That's your call, brother. My obligation has been satisfied.

So I'm supposed to live my life by what someone invisible and unproven says by way of some men's writings,

No. You have free will. You can live your life anyway you want to live your life. Your actions and behaviors have consequences. Not only in this life but the next. Not only for you but also the people you care about. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Violating physical laws have immediate consequences, not so for moral law violations, but there will eventually be consequences. Why? Because not all behaviors lead to equal results. Failed behaviors will naturally and eventually lead to failures and successful behaviors will naturally and eventually lead to success. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. So don't be shocked when predictable surprises occur because they will only be a surprise to you. Personally, I believe someone who has no belief other than arguments against the beliefs of others is pretty messed up, but it is your mistake to make. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Go live your life as you see fit, but don't say you weren't warned.

Man, that's fucked up.

Yep. It sure is, but that is a discussion for another day as that too has an explanation.

 

[Mudda]

You simply like living in a dream world where you're convinced that an invisible superbeing rules, and if you don't obey some arbitrary rules written up by men, that you'll burn in a fire forever.

I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

I've made my life and my family's life better by not living it based on fairy tales, because that's what the bible is.

I think that is great, I really do, but we are discussing a path not traveled. You can only make a proper comparison between the two after you have traveled both.

You haven't proven one single thing about your invisibly friend, and if you ever care to, I'm here.

As I have already said, I'm not trying to prove anything about [my] "invisible" friend. We are discussing IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence. I thought you were agnostic. Have you changed your mind about that?

No, there is no best, better or correct order. It's like scoring a goal, it doesn't really matter how it got in the net, just that it did, and there's no proper way to score a goal, any puck that goes in is the proper way.

So you could just put any old chord progression and change keys willy-nilly? No. I don't think so. Music, like mathematics doesn't work that way.

Maybe I'm not getting what you're getting at here, because more complex things are more complex. What's the relevance?

The relevance is that as a rule, the greater the complexity something is, the more steps and intelligence required to make it. This is self evident.

Sometimes the smartest people in music write the simplest, dumbest songs. But you don't learn much about the composer from a song.

Sure, but here again you are pointing at the exception rather than the rule. In the case of music or art or anything that requires creative skills over technical skills, The artists with the most talent will be the ones that can pull off the greatest works, just like in the technical realm, the most intelligent ones are the ones that pull of the most complex works. This is all common sense and should be self evident.

Yes, but some things like art have no sequential rules.

Sure. Some art like abstract art for instance, but most art requires a tremendous talent to pull off. But here again you are pointing at the exception rather than the rule. It looks like to me you are looking for ways to confirm your bias that there can be no evidence for a Creator, when in reality, IF there is a Creator, His Creation is the evidence.

Lots of bands with no talent have hit songs that suck. The most talented people don't always make it to the top, as it takes more than just talent. That's the rule, not the exception.
Actually, people do compose music by playing any old chord sometimes. Atonal music, for example, has no structure whatsoever.
the most talented don't always make the greatest works. Ex: U2 musicians aren't the most talented but together they made something pretty big.
I've also travelled both paths, as a youngster, I went to Sunday school and attending a catholic school with catechism classes...
The universe can't be used as evidence of any invisible being because such a being has never been proven.

 

[Mudda]

Now, as before, you just have to prove that your "omnipotent being" exists. You haven't proven it, your omnipotent being friend hasn't proven itself either.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. I am trying to explain to you that IF God exists and IF He created the universe, everything inside of the universe could be used as evidence. One would think someone who claimed to be agnostic, would start looking at the evidence a little more closely. That's your call, brother. My obligation has been satisfied.

So I'm supposed to live my life by what someone invisible and unproven says by way of some men's writings,

No. You have free will. You can live your life anyway you want to live your life. Your actions and behaviors have consequences. Not only in this life but the next. Not only for you but also the people you care about. We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Violating physical laws have immediate consequences, not so for moral law violations, but there will eventually be consequences. Why? Because not all behaviors lead to equal results. Failed behaviors will naturally and eventually lead to failures and successful behaviors will naturally and eventually lead to success. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. So don't be shocked when predictable surprises occur because they will only be a surprise to you. Personally, I believe someone who has no belief other than arguments against the beliefs of others is pretty messed up, but it is your mistake to make. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Go live your life as you see fit, but don't say you weren't warned.

Man, that's fucked up.

Yep. It sure is, but that is a discussion for another day as that too has an explanation.

I don't have arguments against god (because I believe that a god is certainly possible, just not yet proven), I have arguments against what you say because you have no proof of what you say about being judged by an invisible person.
You say you've warned me, so your religion works on threats, not common sense/proof. Absurd.

 

[ding]

Lots of bands with no talent have hit songs that suck. The most talented people don't always make it to the top, as it takes more than just talent. That's the rule, not the exception.

You should contact the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with this news. Just tell them who you are and what your opinion is and I'm sure they will gladly rectify the situation.

Actually, people do compose music by playing any old chord sometimes. Atonal music, for example, has no structure whatsoever.

Would they be the exception or the rule? How many would you say do that compared to those that don't do that?

the most talented don't always make the greatest works. Ex: U2 musicians aren't the most talented but together they made something pretty big.

I'll be sure to pass that on to Bono the next time we are discussing whether or not the universe and the evolution of matter can be used as evidence for a Creator.

I've also travelled both paths, as a youngster, I went to Sunday school and attending a catholic school with catechism classes...

That probably explains why you are an atheist pretending to be agnostic. It also probably explains why you are trying to resolve your struggle within by spending so much time talking about something you don't believe exists. You spend much time discussing the FSM?

The universe can't be used as evidence of any invisible being because such a being has never been proven.

Sure it can. Short of God coming down to earth and dying for our sins and inspiring men to capture His word, it's all we have.

 

[Mudda]

Lots of bands with no talent have hit songs that suck. The most talented people don't always make it to the top, as it takes more than just talent. That's the rule, not the exception.

You should contact the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with this news. Just tell them who you are and what your opinion is and I'm sure they will gladly rectify the situation.

Actually, people do compose music by playing any old chord sometimes. Atonal music, for example, has no structure whatsoever.

Would they be the exception or the rule? How many would you say do that compared to those that don't do that?

the most talented don't always make the greatest works. Ex: U2 musicians aren't the most talented but together they made something pretty big.

I'll be sure to pass that on to Bono the next time we are discussing whether or not the universe and the evolution of matter can be used as evidence for a Creator.

I've also travelled both paths, as a youngster, I went to Sunday school and attending a catholic school with catechism classes...

That probably explains why you are an atheist pretending to be agnostic. It also probably explains why you are trying to resolve your struggle within by spending so much time talking about something you don't believe exists. You spend much time discussing the FSM?

The universe can't be used as evidence of any invisible being because such a being has never been proven.

Sure it can. Short of God coming down to earth and dying for our sins and inspiring men to capture His word, it's all we have.

You use the simpleton's line: the universe exists, therefore someone had to have created it. That is simply not yet proven, we don't know who or why the universe ended up like it did, and it may very well be some invisible superbeing in another dimension that created everything but that's not yet been proven, and it may very well be something completely different.
And the fact that you're getting snooty about my position shows me that it bothers you. I started coming here because I figured I'd ask believers if they had any actual proof that makes them believe, and nobody has ever had even a tiny shred of proof. They usually get upset at me for insisting on real proof, probably because it makes people feel deep down that they really do have nothing concrete to base their core beliefs on.

 

[ding]

You use the simpleton's line: the universe exists, therefore someone had to have created it.

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. You shouldn't be knocking simple solutions. Besides, we live in a universe where there has NEVER been an uncaused event. NEVER. I didn't say someone. I said a Creator. I don't think the Creator is a someone. I think the Creator is a something. Who knows what it is. I only have reason and experience to go by. Reason tells us that if something is created, something created it. Experience tells us that what was created can be used as evidence. Look at it this way, if we were living in a virtual reality software program we wouldn't know we were and we wouldn't know who wrote the code, but there would have been a creator for that.

That is simply not yet proven, we don't know who or why the universe ended up like it did, and it may very well be some invisible superbeing in another dimension that created everything but that's not yet been proven, and it may very well be something completely different.

Maybe or maybe not, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. All we are discussing is whether or not what was created can be used as evidence. If there was a Creator, I say it can. You apparently say it can't. Fine. Why are we still discussing it then? Honest men can have honest differences of opinion. You continue to believe what you want and I'll do the same.

And the fact that you're getting snooty about my position shows me that it bothers you.

I am not being anymore snooty than you are, so don't go and get all high and mighty on me.

I started coming here because I figured I'd ask believers if they had any actual proof that makes them believe, and nobody has ever had even a tiny shred of proof. They usually get upset at me for insisting on real proof, probably because it makes people feel deep down that they really do have nothing concrete to base their core beliefs on.

I hope you don't mind if I call BS on this. You are here to amuse yourself and to make yourself feel superior. I have tons of evidence to support my beliefs. You won't accept any of it. I can't even get you to accept that tangible items can be used as evidence. If you won't open your mind to that, there is nothing you will accept.

 

[ding]

I don't have arguments against god (because I believe that a god is certainly possible, just not yet proven)

That's not it looks to me.

You haven't proven it, your omnipotent being friend hasn't proven itself either.

That's because we aren't discussing proof for God. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

You say you've warned me, so your religion works on threats, not common sense/proof. Absurd.

No. I have warned you about practicing failed behaviors in this world and the consequences for doing so in this world. The next world is between you and God.

 

[Mudda]

You use the simpleton's line: the universe exists, therefore someone had to have created it.

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. You shouldn't be knocking simple solutions. Besides, we live in a universe where there has NEVER been an uncaused event. NEVER. I didn't say someone. I said a Creator. I don't think the Creator is a someone. I think the Creator is a something. Who knows what it is. I only have reason and experience to go by. Reason tells us that if something is created, something created it. Experience tells us that what was created can be used as evidence. Look at it this way, if we were living in a virtual reality software program we wouldn't know we were and we wouldn't know who wrote the code, but there would have been a creator for that.

That is simply not yet proven, we don't know who or why the universe ended up like it did, and it may very well be some invisible superbeing in another dimension that created everything but that's not yet been proven, and it may very well be something completely different.

Maybe or maybe not, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. All we are discussing is whether or not what was created can be used as evidence. If there was a Creator, I say it can. You apparently say it can't. Fine. Why are we still discussing it then? Honest men can have honest differences of opinion. You continue to believe what you want and I'll do the same.

And the fact that you're getting snooty about my position shows me that it bothers you.

I am not being anymore snooty than you are, so don't go and get all high and mighty on me.

I started coming here because I figured I'd ask believers if they had any actual proof that makes them believe, and nobody has ever had even a tiny shred of proof. They usually get upset at me for insisting on real proof, probably because it makes people feel deep down that they really do have nothing concrete to base their core beliefs on.

I hope you don't mind if I call BS on this. You are here to amuse yourself and to make yourself feel superior. I have tons of evidence to support my beliefs. You won't accept any of it. I can't even get you to accept that tangible items can be used as evidence. If you won't open your mind to that, there is nothing you will accept.

What tangible evidence? You've provide nothing. Not even your own experience, if any.

Now you're saying that god is a thing. So I should worship and obey a thing or burn in a fire forever? This story just gets more far fetched by the post. How can a thing want me to obey it? So if we're made in his image, we're things as well? How does that work exactly?
So you admit to being snooty? Good for you. Did you learn that attitude from Jesus?
What was created can be used as evidence? Of what? Not knowing how it was created? Then yes, I agree. And btw, good for you again.

 

[Mudda]

I don't have arguments against god (because I believe that a god is certainly possible, just not yet proven)

That's not it looks to me.

You haven't proven it, your omnipotent being friend hasn't proven itself either.

That's because we aren't discussing proof for God. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

You say you've warned me, so your religion works on threats, not common sense/proof. Absurd.

No. I have warned you about practicing failed behaviors in this world and the consequences for doing so in this world. The next world is between you and God.

I don't practise what you call failed behaviours.
If you want to claim that "the next world is between you and god", then you'll have to prove god. Go for it.

 

[Mudda]

Ding, What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"?

 

[ding]

What tangible evidence? You've provide nothing. Not even your own experience, if any.

The universe and everything inside it would be considered tangible evidence. When I spoke about experience I was referring to my experiences creating things.

Now you're saying that god is a thing.

That was me getting you back on track from you wanting me to prove God's existence to you.

So I should worship and obey a thing or burn in a fire forever?

No. I didn't say that. That's up to you. I couldn't care less what you do. I believe that will be between you and God.

This story just gets more far fetched by the post.

The "story" is all in your head. You seem to think that I'm trying to prove God existence to you. I'm not. You should know that by now. I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

How can a thing want me to obey it? So if we're made in his image, we're things as well? How does that work exactly?

Seriously? C'mon man. Go talk to Mickey. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

So you admit to being snooty?

No. I admitted that I wan't being anymore snooty than you were. C'mon man.

Good for you. Did you learn that attitude from Jesus?

No. It's one of the things He's working on. I never claimed to be a saint.

What was created can be used as evidence? Of what? Not knowing how it was created? Then yes, I agree.

We already discussed this, you just dismissed each and every one. Don't you remember?

I don't practise what you call failed behaviours.

That's good. I hope that's true, but that will be determined by the outcomes, not what you say.

Ding, What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"?

I answered that in another thread. I don't know what it is. Try asking Mickey. Maybe he knows. He knows everything.

 

[Mickiel]

What tangible evidence? You've provide nothing. Not even your own experience, if any.

The universe and everything inside it would be considered tangible evidence. When I spoke about experience I was referring to my experiences creating things.

Now you're saying that god is a thing.

That was me getting you back on track from you wanting me to prove God's existence to you.

So I should worship and obey a thing or burn in a fire forever?

No. I didn't say that. That's up to you. I couldn't care less what you do. I believe that will be between you and God.

This story just gets more far fetched by the post.

The "story" is all in your head. You seem to think that I'm trying to prove God existence to you. I'm not. You should know that by now. I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

How can a thing want me to obey it? So if we're made in his image, we're things as well? How does that work exactly?

Seriously? C'mon man. Go talk to Mickey. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

So you admit to being snooty?

No. I admitted that I wan't being anymore snooty than you were. C'mon man.

Good for you. Did you learn that attitude from Jesus?

No. It's one of the things He's working on. I never claimed to be a saint.

What was created can be used as evidence? Of what? Not knowing how it was created? Then yes, I agree.

We already discussed this, you just dismissed each and every one. Don't you remember?

I don't practise what you call failed behaviours.

That's good. I hope that's true, but that will be determined by the outcomes, not what you say.

Ding, What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"?

I answered that in another thread. I don't know what it is. Try asking Mickey. Maybe he knows. He knows everything.

I know God is real ;


Is God Real?

 

[Mudda]

What tangible evidence? You've provide nothing. Not even your own experience, if any.

The universe and everything inside it would be considered tangible evidence. When I spoke about experience I was referring to my experiences creating things.

Now you're saying that god is a thing.

That was me getting you back on track from you wanting me to prove God's existence to you.

So I should worship and obey a thing or burn in a fire forever?

No. I didn't say that. That's up to you. I couldn't care less what you do. I believe that will be between you and God.

This story just gets more far fetched by the post.

The "story" is all in your head. You seem to think that I'm trying to prove God existence to you. I'm not. You should know that by now. I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

How can a thing want me to obey it? So if we're made in his image, we're things as well? How does that work exactly?

Seriously? C'mon man. Go talk to Mickey. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

So you admit to being snooty?

No. I admitted that I wan't being anymore snooty than you were. C'mon man.

Good for you. Did you learn that attitude from Jesus?

No. It's one of the things He's working on. I never claimed to be a saint.

What was created can be used as evidence? Of what? Not knowing how it was created? Then yes, I agree.

We already discussed this, you just dismissed each and every one. Don't you remember?

I don't practise what you call failed behaviours.

That's good. I hope that's true, but that will be determined by the outcomes, not what you say.

Ding, What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"?

I answered that in another thread. I don't know what it is. Try asking Mickey. Maybe he knows. He knows everything.

I know God is real ;


Is God Real?

What's your best proof?

 

[Mudda]

What tangible evidence? You've provide nothing. Not even your own experience, if any.

The universe and everything inside it would be considered tangible evidence. When I spoke about experience I was referring to my experiences creating things.

Now you're saying that god is a thing.

That was me getting you back on track from you wanting me to prove God's existence to you.

So I should worship and obey a thing or burn in a fire forever?

No. I didn't say that. That's up to you. I couldn't care less what you do. I believe that will be between you and God.

This story just gets more far fetched by the post.

The "story" is all in your head. You seem to think that I'm trying to prove God existence to you. I'm not. You should know that by now. I have not gotten within 100 miles of arguing that God exists. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

How can a thing want me to obey it? So if we're made in his image, we're things as well? How does that work exactly?

Seriously? C'mon man. Go talk to Mickey. The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence.

So you admit to being snooty?

No. I admitted that I wan't being anymore snooty than you were. C'mon man.

Good for you. Did you learn that attitude from Jesus?

No. It's one of the things He's working on. I never claimed to be a saint.

What was created can be used as evidence? Of what? Not knowing how it was created? Then yes, I agree.

We already discussed this, you just dismissed each and every one. Don't you remember?

I don't practise what you call failed behaviours.

That's good. I hope that's true, but that will be determined by the outcomes, not what you say.

Ding, What is "supernatural protection while doing missions"?

I answered that in another thread. I don't know what it is. Try asking Mickey. Maybe he knows. He knows everything.

"The only thing I am discussing is that IF God exists AND God created the universe, could what He created be used as evidence." Anything concrete can be used as evidence, you just need the proper trial or circumstance to use it in. You're taking evidence and attributing it to an invisible person without any solid reason to do so. You'd be thrown out of court. If not laughed out.

"I admitted that I wan't being anymore snooty than you were" But I don't have an invisible friend telling not to be snooty or I'll roast in a fire forever, lol.

If you want to claim that "the next world is between you and god", then you'll have to prove god. Go for it. Otherwise don't claim such things and then deflect to the same phrase about not trying to prove god (which you are, but failing epically) every time.

If you don't know what "supernatural protection while doing missions" are, then why did you mention it as something your invisible friend does?