This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

Also excellent:

nextexx.com

This domain may be for sale!

nextexx.com

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Can I buy a vowel?

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Sorry, but you are running in circles.

If God created existence, then he also created the flawed species that is man. Answer each of the questions provided by the paradox that is the Riddle of Epicurus.

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

And have already been addressed by MLK, Maimonides and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That you do not accept those answers makes further conversation illogical. Unless of course you need for me to repeat their answers.

 

[ding]

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

Paradox do not exist in actuality. The error is always in the paradox itself.

 

[ding]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

It was never my position. It was your position that I think I know it all. I just explained that I don’t know it all and why you made the error thinking I did.

Could it be said there is one thing which I know with certainty, the existence of God? 100%. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I’ve looked at it from every angle.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The world has its share of injustice and suffering, the victims often being innocent. Let's put it this way... if there is a God, he isn't anything like Christianity defines.

How does Christianity define God? What are you using as your source for what Christians believe and can you quote the relevant part of that source that supports your contention?

I'll quote Lil Nipper as my source. While I don't mean to generalize about every Christian, let's just say that the attitude projected in Post #595 is a common one. In short, I draw on many interactions with Christian people, some who I find reasonable people practicing their faith with quiet dignity, others who insist that in God "we" trust in this one country "under" God.

Surely, you don't mean to suggest that most Christians do not believe their God to be loving and all-powerful? Surely, you don't mean to say that God isn't a god at all? Rather, you appear inclined to lean on Socrates and the Strawman as a means to dodge the obvious.

I believe that no Christian expects the world or people to be perfect or blames God when they aren't. They take it on faith that God's ways are inscrutable and that everything works for good even when they don't understand how.

I will never understand how anyone can see existence as anything but good. I guess it's just human nature to be pessimistic.

You shouldn't open with an absolute ("no Christian"); absolutes are generally considered to be logical fallacy. Such immediately opens a hole in what you stated to have been "thoroughly considered" in arriving at conclusions.

As to your last sentence, I fail to see why you cannot understand disappointment in the refusal of an omnipotent to vanquish evil. Dismissing God's malevolence on the excuse of existence is lame.

But I'll credit you with confessing that what it all comes down to is "faith". God works in mysterious ways, right? I am glad that such belief brings you comfort but if you wish that comfort unchallenged perhaps you shouldn't pander so widely with that which is simply, faith. Some of us expect more than God's supposed word as preached and penned by mortals.

 

[Mr Natural]

Most likely the same as the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

Paradox do not exist in actuality. The error is always in the paradox itself.

Ok, I'll play...

What error exist in the riddle?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

Also excellent:

nextexx.com

This domain may be for sale!

nextexx.com

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Can I buy a vowel?

Your homework, should you actually give a shit some day, is to read the links provided. As often as required for some of it to finally sink in. If that still strikes you as "pretty vague" in your ignorant opinion, then blame the author. But also try rebutting any of it with anything you imagine makes more sense.. logically.

 

[ding]

The world has its share of injustice and suffering, the victims often being innocent. Let's put it this way... if there is a God, he isn't anything like Christianity defines.

How does Christianity define God? What are you using as your source for what Christians believe and can you quote the relevant part of that source that supports your contention?

I'll quote Lil Nipper as my source. While I don't mean to generalize about every Christian, let's just say that the attitude projected in Post #595 is a common one. In short, I draw on many interactions with Christian people, some who I find reasonable people practicing their faith with quiet dignity, others who insist that in God "we" trust in this one country "under" God.

Surely, you don't mean to suggest that most Christians do not believe their God to be loving and all-powerful? Surely, you don't mean to say that God isn't a god at all? Rather, you appear inclined to lean on Socrates and the Strawman as a means to dodge the obvious.

I believe that no Christian expects the world or people to be perfect or blames God when they aren't. They take it on faith that God's ways are inscrutable and that everything works for good even when they don't understand how.

I will never understand how anyone can see existence as anything but good. I guess it's just human nature to be pessimistic.

You shouldn't open with an absolute ("no Christian"); absolutes are generally considered to be logical fallacy. Such immediately opens a hole in what you stated to have been "thoroughly considered" in arriving at conclusions.

As to your last sentence, I fail to see why you cannot understand disappointment in the refusal of an omnipotent to vanquish evil. Dismissing God's malevolence on the excuse of existence is lame.

But I'll credit you with confessing that what it all comes down to is "faith". God works in mysterious ways, right? I am glad that such belief brings you comfort but if you wish that comfort unchallenged perhaps you shouldn't pander so widely with that which is simply, faith. Some of us expect more than God's supposed word as preached and penned by mortals.

Technically starting a sentence with "you shouldn't" is an absolute

But given the Christian belief of the "Fall of Man" I think it's a safe bet that no Christian expects the world or people to be perfect or blames God when they aren't. They take it on faith that God's ways are inscrutable and that everything works for good even when they don't understand how. That's sort of a fundamental belief of Christians. So I think I'm good there.

I don't fail to understand the disappointment in God not creating a Garden of Eden for you, although "technically" He supposedly did for Adam and Eve.

I fail to understand how you could conclude that God doesn't exist because of it. What you are really saying is that God doesn't exist in a manner that is pleasing to you. That I can understand.

 

[ding]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

Also excellent:

nextexx.com

This domain may be for sale!

nextexx.com

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Can I buy a vowel?

Your homework, should you actually give a shit some day, is to read the links provided. As often as required for some of it to finally sink in. If that still strikes you as "pretty vague" in your ignorant opinion, then blame the author. But also try rebutting any of it with anything you imagine makes more sense.. logically.

I'm not going to play guessing games as to what it is you are trying to say.

 

[ding]

But I'll credit you with confessing that what it all comes down to is "faith". God works in mysterious ways, right? I am glad that such belief brings you comfort but if you wish that comfort unchallenged perhaps you shouldn't pander so widely with that which is simply, faith. Some of us expect more than God's supposed word as preached and penned by mortals.

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in something or someone. I never place complete trust in something or someone without good reason. I have no problem with my faith being challenged. I do sometimes get tired of disingenuous paradox which are designed to obfuscate truth. But then I usually remind myself that everything works for good and this too shall pass and I smile a little. I never saw what I do as pandering though. I always thought of it as participating in the conflict and confusion process of arriving at objective truth. But far be it for me to judge you judging God. To each his own. That's between you and God. I don't want to get in His way.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

It was never my position. It was your position that I think I know it all. I just explained that I don’t know it all and why you made the error thinking I did.

Could it be said there is one thing which I know with certainty, the existence of God? 100%. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I’ve looked at it from every angle.

You didn't explain anything. Rather, you are stammering about something that I already confessed: that you don't know everything.

I apologize for again challenging your logic, but your last paragraph contains two more absolutes (the use of "100%" and "every angle"). The fact that you, "Don't see it any other way", could purely be a product of what you have already confessed: that you don't know everything.

Seriously, I wish no ill will to either you or your faith while simultaneously disliking it when some tells me I'm FOS because I don't take for certainty that which is taken on faith.

I cannot disprove God's existence (proving a negative is another one of those pesky fallacies). And you can't prove God's existence with faith - other than to yourself and others of like mind. What evidence do you have beyond hearsay?

 

[Dusty]

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Nothing except some magical being living in the sky.

What makes more sense, nothing deciding to create everything, or God creating everything?

"God" is just your substitute for "nothing". You want a nothing that cares where you put your peepee, because you think you are a special, unique boy and can maybe live forever.

And you believe that nothing at all created the universe because nothing got tired of being nothing. God is the ultimate scientist, you are the fool that believes in fairytales

 

[ding]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

It was never my position. It was your position that I think I know it all. I just explained that I don’t know it all and why you made the error thinking I did.

Could it be said there is one thing which I know with certainty, the existence of God? 100%. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I’ve looked at it from every angle.

You didn't explain anything. Rather, you are stammering about something that I already confessed: that you don't know everything.

I apologize for again challenging your logic, but your last paragraph contains two more absolutes (the use of "100%" and "every angle"). The fact that you, "Don't see it any other way", could purely be a product of what you have already confessed: that you don't know everything.

Seriously, I wish no ill will to either you or your faith while simultaneously disliking it when some tells me I'm FOS because I don't take for certainty that which is taken on faith.

I cannot disprove God's existence (proving a negative is another one of those pesky fallacies). And you can't prove God's existence with faith - other than to yourself and others of like mind. What evidence do you have beyond hearsay?

I'm not looking to fight. I don't recall telling you that you were FOS. So I'm not sure where that came from. What I explained to you was why you thought I thought I knew everything. I've thought through this more than you have.

Somewhere along the line you must have missed my perception of God. God is no thing. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. So the evidence is all around you. Existence is your evidence. Existence is not hearsay.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

But I'll credit you with confessing that what it all comes down to is "faith". God works in mysterious ways, right? I am glad that such belief brings you comfort but if you wish that comfort unchallenged perhaps you shouldn't pander so widely with that which is simply, faith. Some of us expect more than God's supposed word as preached and penned by mortals.

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in something or someone. I never place complete trust in something or someone without good reason. I have no problem with my faith being challenged. I do sometimes get tired of disingenuous paradox which are designed to obfuscate truth. But then I usually remind myself that everything works for good and this too shall pass and I smile a little. I never saw what I do as pandering though. I always thought of it as participating in the conflict and confusion process of arriving at objective truth. But far be it for me to judge you judging God. To each his own. That's between you and God. I don't want to get in His way.

As to what I bolded of yours, you are drawing a general conclusion without having addressed the specifics. How is the riddle either disingenuous or logically invalid? It appears you have no answer but to dismiss it with empty generalization.

"To each his own"? Good, then don't instruct me as to what is between me and your God. I'd lay good odds that you don't see the condescending "holier than thou" in that remark.

 

[ding]

I apologize for again challenging your logic, but your last paragraph contains two more absolutes (the use of "100%" and "every angle"). The fact that you, "Don't see it any other way", could purely be a product of what you have already confessed: that you don't know everything.

Of course I answered that question with an absolute statement. I don't see how it can be any other way. There must be a first cause for existence and that first cause cannot be matter or energy.

 

[ding]

But I'll credit you with confessing that what it all comes down to is "faith". God works in mysterious ways, right? I am glad that such belief brings you comfort but if you wish that comfort unchallenged perhaps you shouldn't pander so widely with that which is simply, faith. Some of us expect more than God's supposed word as preached and penned by mortals.

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in something or someone. I never place complete trust in something or someone without good reason. I have no problem with my faith being challenged. I do sometimes get tired of disingenuous paradox which are designed to obfuscate truth. But then I usually remind myself that everything works for good and this too shall pass and I smile a little. I never saw what I do as pandering though. I always thought of it as participating in the conflict and confusion process of arriving at objective truth. But far be it for me to judge you judging God. To each his own. That's between you and God. I don't want to get in His way.

As to what I bolded of yours, you are drawing a general conclusion without having addressed the specifics. How is the riddle either disingenuous or logically invalid? It appears you have no answer but to dismiss it with empty generalization.

"To each his own"? Good, then don't instruct me as to what is between me and your God. I'd lay good odds that you don't see the condescending "holier than thou" in that remark.

Because none of them address purpose. It is purpose which defines power. To argue that the creator of existence is not all powerful because what was created does not please you is illogical and presumes God's purpose was to create an existence that pleases you.

It's not between you and my God. It's between you and God. The word condescending has gotten a bad wrap. It wasn't always used in a negative fashion. Jesus condescended to men. But I can assure you my belief is in no way intended to be holier than thou. I'm no saint.

 

[Hollie]

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Nothing except some magical being living in the sky.

What makes more sense, nothing deciding to create everything, or God creating everything?

"God" is just your substitute for "nothing". You want a nothing that cares where you put your peepee, because you think you are a special, unique boy and can maybe live forever.

And you believe that nothing at all created the universe because nothing got tired of being nothing. God is the ultimate scientist, you are the fool that believes in fairytales

Odd. Nothing supports your claim to gods and nothing supports your claim to your gods being scientists. Apparently you don't realize your tired argument offering nothing of substance is timewasting.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

It was never my position. It was your position that I think I know it all. I just explained that I don’t know it all and why you made the error thinking I did.

Could it be said there is one thing which I know with certainty, the existence of God? 100%. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I’ve looked at it from every angle.

You didn't explain anything. Rather, you are stammering about something that I already confessed: that you don't know everything.

I apologize for again challenging your logic, but your last paragraph contains two more absolutes (the use of "100%" and "every angle"). The fact that you, "Don't see it any other way", could purely be a product of what you have already confessed: that you don't know everything.

Seriously, I wish no ill will to either you or your faith while simultaneously disliking it when some tells me I'm FOS because I don't take for certainty that which is taken on faith.

I cannot disprove God's existence (proving a negative is another one of those pesky fallacies). And you can't prove God's existence with faith - other than to yourself and others of like mind. What evidence do you have beyond hearsay?

I'm not looking to fight. I don't recall telling you that you were FOS. So I'm not sure where that came from. What I explained to you was why you thought I thought I knew everything. I've thought through this more than you have.

Somewhere along the line you must have missed my perception of God. God is no thing. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. So the evidence is all around you. Existence is your evidence. Existence is not hearsay.

I have much to say of your contradictions, but we''ll have to play later.

 

[ding]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

It was never my position. It was your position that I think I know it all. I just explained that I don’t know it all and why you made the error thinking I did.

Could it be said there is one thing which I know with certainty, the existence of God? 100%. I don’t see how it can be any other way. I’ve looked at it from every angle.

You didn't explain anything. Rather, you are stammering about something that I already confessed: that you don't know everything.

I apologize for again challenging your logic, but your last paragraph contains two more absolutes (the use of "100%" and "every angle"). The fact that you, "Don't see it any other way", could purely be a product of what you have already confessed: that you don't know everything.

Seriously, I wish no ill will to either you or your faith while simultaneously disliking it when some tells me I'm FOS because I don't take for certainty that which is taken on faith.

I cannot disprove God's existence (proving a negative is another one of those pesky fallacies). And you can't prove God's existence with faith - other than to yourself and others of like mind. What evidence do you have beyond hearsay?

I'm not looking to fight. I don't recall telling you that you were FOS. So I'm not sure where that came from. What I explained to you was why you thought I thought I knew everything. I've thought through this more than you have.

Somewhere along the line you must have missed my perception of God. God is no thing. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. So the evidence is all around you. Existence is your evidence. Existence is not hearsay.

I have much to say of your contradictions, but we''ll have to play later.

Anytime. May I suggest the Bull Ring for a more one on one discussion.