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

[ding]

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

I have no idea what your point here. You don't believe in God because evil exists. Logically evil has nothing to do with existence. I infer God's existence through the first cause principle and the study of the creation of space and time. I infer God's intentions and attributes through man and nature. It would actually be more logical for you to argue God exists and God is evil than to argue evil exists so God doesn't exist.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

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

I am an atheist and I do not think that. I believe that we are yet to learn how it all got started.

Thank you Prof.Lunaphiles
We do need objective yet open minded people like you to facilitate ANY discussion of God, the meaning of God and beliefs about the origin or nature of God.

Now ^ THIS HERE ^ is the Perfect Topic
to host your forum Convention around!

Not politics. But let's start with God, the meaning of God to different groups traditions or denominations. And then beliefs about the Nature of God, the origin and the process of understanding or reconciling about God and Universal truths.

Maybe each group or leader who participates, sets up their own board using your format. They operate separately. And you facilitate and connect each group board or rep to a CENTRAL forum board for assimilating their findings as a common declaration of faith and agreed principles. If groups disagree, they either go back into sub sessions to resolve, and or post a statement explaining their different choices that do not contradict each other (such as one group calling God Wisdom or Love, that is different but doesn't contradict God as Nature or Creator/Source of Life/Universe that are still referring to the same God but different manifestations).

 

[buttercup]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

Yeah I think they sincerely don't know that. I think that's one of the most awesome things about God, he continually turns bad into good. I've seen it so many times, and it is a beautiful thing. It shows Romans 8:28 is very true.

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

Yeah I think they sincerely don't know that. I think that's one of the most awesome things about God, he continually turns bad into good. I've seen it so many times, and it is a beautiful thing. It shows Romans 8:28 is very true.

Me too. I can't begin to tell you how important this is to having peace through the storm.

 

[beautress]

what is your explanation for how and where the Universe came from?

He cannot conceive that there is a higher power out there that could have created all of this. Therefore, he believes that the universe caused itself to come into existence just like he caused himself to come into existence. In his mind, that's logical and rationale. The idea that a higher power created all of this is "silly", as he said.

God is omnipotent. He created the heavens and all that are in them including the earth.

 

[emilynghiem]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

So what you are saying is that your God is imperfect. On merit of some of what goes on in the world, I'd agree that your definition of God is erroneous. -thanks

No. The error was in the paradox. Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

Yes and No ding buttercup
This is where the definition of God becomes as confusing as the Trinity.

The God we know on a personal level does not create evil but allows it to influence our learning process.

The bigger infinite level of God as in all collective knowledge and events in the bigger Universe OF COURSE is the source of all things both good and bad events and energies.

ding I think you mean God's ideal will and perfect plan does not have any evil in it.

But the bigger process of life covers all the ups and downs of human progress, learning by trial and error, and social and spiritual history.

The Bible acknowledges ALL authorities and dominions are created by the Lord for His purposes. Col 1:16

I agree with you that the evil corruption and dark energy CLASHES with God's perfect will and lifegiving energy and power of redemption through Christ. But since Christ Jesus has authority over any such evil, then the same source that Christ comes from has to have jurisdiction over the evil.

We do not have access or authority to control that evil and fight that fight. Only the Authority of Christ Jesus.

Our perception and understanding of God is limited to what we can perceive.

So this level of God is on our scale.
The higher infinite level is where the origins of good and evil are rooted which is still God's jurisdiction but beyond our reach.

 

[buttercup]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

I haven't read all 47 pages of this thread so pardon my ignorance on your position… but you're an atheist, right? If so, how do you define evil, and what is your basis? In other words, how do you account for evil itself? According to your worldview, this is just a physical world of rocks and trees and dirt… You don't believe morality is objective and universal, in the same way that 2+2 = 4, right?

 

[buttercup]

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

How do you, as an atheist, account for logic itself? You do realize that logic is objective, right?

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

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

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Outside our universe... that's rich.

It's not a theoretical concept that a small mind like yours could reasonably embrace. However if you want to understand your ignorance accept that the farthest galaxies in the visible universe are moving the fastest and there gravity fails all attempts to be the accelerating force as there is just not enough mass so dark matter is inferred. In a new theory it is speculated that the accelerating force is actually on the other side pulling instead of this side pushing.

But you will never know because you are a yes man and not a thinker

Now put on your mask and be a good boy

 

[Dusty]

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.

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.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

Existence is proof only of existence, not of God.

No, I'm not asking God to do magic because I don't believe in magic nor do I believe in your definition of God. I believe there is a lot we do not understand and likely never will.

You are just expecting God to provide a perfect existence for you.

Be that as it may, it's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

I'm not expecting anything from God. I don't even believe in your God.

I'm expecting you to justify your God's performance in this imperfect world given his supposed omnipotence and compassion. You want me to simply accept that he has a plan based on the notion that intelligence requires your God's intervention. Your attempting to sell me faith and I ain't buying.

I am expecting you to explain how nothing created everything which is what you believe

Expect all you want. I don't pretend to have anything but opinions and do not offer them as fact.

My conversation (here) challenges those who pedal their faith as fact - specifically as regards the existence of an omnipotent, compassionate and all-knowing god. I see no evidence of such an entity.

God as described in the bible is actually the ultimate scientist as he knows all and can do anything with that knowledge.

This is completely scientific unlike nothing creating everything as atheist believe

The fact is, there is no God and never has been, regardless what it says in your bible. Its a myth.
No where in the bible does it say He's the ultimate scientist. You are now so arrogant you are speaking in behalf of your God and claiming to know how he thinks. You don't. You can't even prove his sci fence let alone quote him.
So cut your childish crap and keep your silly predictions to yourself unless you have irrefutable evidence.

Then you can grow DNA from nothing.

Ill wait while you try and end up with your pee pee in your hand

 

[buttercup]

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

I have no idea what your point here. You don't believe in God because evil exists. Logically evil has nothing to do with existence. I infer God's existence through the first cause principle and the study of the creation of space and time. I infer God's intentions and attributes through man and nature. It would actually be more logical for you to argue God exists and God is evil than to argue evil exists so God doesn't exist.

Thank you! Again I don't want to be rude but to me that is one of the worst arguments against God. In fact, it does the exact opposite, when one thinks deeper on it. I know I've posted this quote before, but since the topic has come up again…

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

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

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Well there is a theory on how everything came to being but it's not a theory now. It's a fact. Its called evolution and is proven a thousand times and supported by DNA. Unlike yours which is based on faith and a bible. Both very reliable sources nowadays.

You needed worry about where God is because it never existed other than in your head. Furthermore, it's not a theory, it's total crap.

Why did ponds stop creating DNA? Remember doofy, nothing can not evolve

 

[Dusty]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

Yo, only a complete moron would converse with ding.

That would be you

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

Yo, only a complete moron would converse with ding.

That would be you

Why is that?

 

[Hollie]

The problem with your argument here is that, and let's assume God created everything, that either God was created from nothing, or God wasn't even created.

So, if God wasn't created, then things being created from nothing is more plausible than something not even being created.

If God was created, then God was created from nothing. Which means things can be created from nothing, which means you don't need a God.

Or, God was created from something, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?

Your belief system is just as wacky, if not more so, than atheists' belief system.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm amazed that anyone is even asking that question ("who created God?") let alone a few people. It shows a blatant lack of understanding on the entire concept of God. God is the First Cause, which has to be eternal. The Creator is uncreated. The buck stops there.

You said that both theism and atheism are wacky, well I agree with you on the latter. To me what is truly wacky is to believe that everything - all of creation, which clearly shows order, design and complexity - is the result of dumb luck, no intelligence. That's like believing the Sistine Chapel could put itself together, with no architect or artist, just pure luck! And some atheists call our beliefs magical? What could be more magical than something (everything) coming from nothing, all by itself? As I always say, I'm awed by the faith of atheists. Personally I could never have that much faith.

Why would you be amazed by anyone asking ''who created the gods''? Religionists tend to insist that their gods are eternal and uncreated but that is nothing more than a ''... because I say so" statement and requires unquestioning belief in partisan dogma. I'm amazed anyone would expect others to accept that.

As to the religioners belief in ''design'', I have to acknowledge that I don’t know exactly what religioners means by “designed”. One of the favorite games of rsligioners is equivocation, so it’s important to pin them down on a precise meaning. Religioners can't seem to state what they mean by “design”. Do they mean simply that something has a pattern to it (as in “the design of a snowflake”), or do they mean something that has a “function”, or must there necessarily be some teleology involved? I think it’s incumbent on religioners to make clear what they mean. Does ''design'' involve a man in a long flowing beard, wearing a nightgown and floating in the clouds who waves his hand and the magic apoears?

 

[Hollie]

what is your explanation for how and where the Universe came from?

He cannot conceive that there is a higher power out there that could have created all of this. Therefore, he believes that the universe caused itself to come into existence just like he caused himself to come into existence. In his mind, that's logical and rationale. The idea that a higher power created all of this is "silly", as he said.

God is omnipotent. He created the heavens and all that are in them including the earth.

He also created the blueprint for the cancer cell.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

How do you, as an atheist, account for logic itself? You do realize that logic is objective, right?

Can't logic be systematic without relying on a personified God?

If we define abuse or harm as violating Consent, and what is good or beneficial would be naturally desired and consented to, isn't that sufficient to explain human conscience.

We desire that which brings greatest mutual benefit, peace and satisfaction.
We avoid what causes fear, distress or threats to life, freedom, security or well being.

Our sense of justice is the balance between individual freedom / liberty / free choice / consent
And Peace /security / order collectively.

Can't Truth and Justice be discussed WITHOUT personifying these as
God's truth/laws but as Universal truth/laws and WITHOUT symbolizing Justice embodied in humanity as Jesus.

Can't we agree on concepts?

 

[buttercup]

The problem with your argument here is that, and let's assume God created everything, that either God was created from nothing, or God wasn't even created.

So, if God wasn't created, then things being created from nothing is more plausible than something not even being created.

If God was created, then God was created from nothing. Which means things can be created from nothing, which means you don't need a God.

Or, God was created from something, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?

Your belief system is just as wacky, if not more so, than atheists' belief system.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm amazed that anyone is even asking that question ("who created God?") let alone a few people. It shows a blatant lack of understanding on the entire concept of God. God is the First Cause, which has to be eternal. The Creator is uncreated. The buck stops there.

You said that both theism and atheism are wacky, well I agree with you on the latter. To me what is truly wacky is to believe that everything - all of creation, which clearly shows order, design and complexity - is the result of dumb luck, no intelligence. That's like believing the Sistine Chapel could put itself together, with no architect or artist, just pure luck! And some atheists call our beliefs magical? What could be more magical than something (everything) coming from nothing, all by itself? As I always say, I'm awed by the faith of atheists. Personally I could never have that much faith.

Why would you be amazed by anyone asking ''who created the gods''? Religionists tend to insist that their gods are eternal and uncreated but that is nothing more than a ''... because I say so" statement and requires unquestioning belief in partisan dogma. I'm amazed anyone would expect others to accept that.

As to the religioners belief in ''design'', I have to acknowledge that I don’t know exactly what religioners means by “designed”. One of the favorite games of rsligioners is equivocation, so it’s important to pin them down on a precise meaning. Religioners can't seem to state what they mean by “design”. Do they mean simply that something has a pattern to it (as in “the design of a snowflake”), or do they mean something that has a “function”, or must there necessarily be some teleology involved? I think it’s incumbent on religioners to make clear what they mean. Does ''design'' involve a man in a long flowing beard, wearing a nightgown and floating in the clouds who waves his hand and the magic apoears?

He didn't ask how God can be eternal (that's a different question) he asked who created God? My point was that shows a blatant lack of understanding on the whole idea of God. One doesn't have to believe in God to understand the basic concept of God. Unless one is brand new to these types of debates, I assumed that atheists have heard many times before that God is eternal. Now if he would've said "explain how can God be eternal?" then I wouldn't have said that I'm amazed anyone is asking that.

As for the word designed, I'm just going by the basic definition. Something that is designed requires intention, thought, a plan. It's the difference between a pile of sand on the beach that was formed by pure chance (the wind blowing it together) and an elaborate sandcastle on the beach… which obviously didn't come together by chance, it was designed and created.

In the same way that it would be absurd to assert that the sandcastle came together by dumb luck, it is absurd and blind to assert that genetic code, the human mind, and everything in creation seen and unseen came together by dumb luck, no intelligence involved.

In fact, believing that is a form of blindness. Not physical blindness obviously but a different type of blindness. You don't see that now because you're still an atheist. If/when that changes, you will realize that you once were blind. And by the way, debating this on the Internet is probably not going to change your mind, so imo it's kind of a waste of time. If you sincerely, truly want to be convinced then my advice to all atheists is to change your attitude, because God is the one who opens people's eyes, but it's probably not gonna happen with a prideful, stubborn, "I demand proof!!!!!1" type of attitude.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem with your argument here is that, and let's assume God created everything, that either God was created from nothing, or God wasn't even created.

So, if God wasn't created, then things being created from nothing is more plausible than something not even being created.

If God was created, then God was created from nothing. Which means things can be created from nothing, which means you don't need a God.

Or, God was created from something, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?

Your belief system is just as wacky, if not more so, than atheists' belief system.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm amazed that anyone is even asking that question ("who created God?") let alone a few people. It shows a blatant lack of understanding on the entire concept of God. God is the First Cause, which has to be eternal. The Creator is uncreated. The buck stops there.

You said that both theism and atheism are wacky, well I agree with you on the latter. To me what is truly wacky is to believe that everything - all of creation, which clearly shows order, design and complexity - is the result of dumb luck, no intelligence. That's like believing the Sistine Chapel could put itself together, with no architect or artist, just pure luck! And some atheists call our beliefs magical? What could be more magical than something (everything) coming from nothing, all by itself? As I always say, I'm awed by the faith of atheists. Personally I could never have that much faith.

Why would you be amazed by anyone asking ''who created the gods''? Religionists tend to insist that their gods are eternal and uncreated but that is nothing more than a ''... because I say so" statement and requires unquestioning belief in partisan dogma. I'm amazed anyone would expect others to accept that.

As to the religioners belief in ''design'', I have to acknowledge that I don’t know exactly what religioners means by “designed”. One of the favorite games of rsligioners is equivocation, so it’s important to pin them down on a precise meaning. Religioners can't seem to state what they mean by “design”. Do they mean simply that something has a pattern to it (as in “the design of a snowflake”), or do they mean something that has a “function”, or must there necessarily be some teleology involved? I think it’s incumbent on religioners to make clear what they mean. Does ''design'' involve a man in a long flowing beard, wearing a nightgown and floating in the clouds who waves his hand and the magic apoears?

He didn't ask how God can be eternal (that's a different question) he asked who created God? My point was that shows a blatant lack of understanding on the whole idea of God. One doesn't have to believe in God to understand the basic concept of God. Unless one is brand new to these types of debates, I assumed that atheists have heard many times before that God is eternal. Now if he would've said "explain how can God be eternal?" then I wouldn't have said that I'm amazed anyone is asking that.

As for the word designed, I'm just going by the basic definition. Something that is designed requires intention, thought, a plan. It's the difference between a pile of sand on the beach that was formed by pure chance (the wind blowing it together) and an elaborate sandcastle on the beach… which obviously didn't come together by chance, it was designed and created.

In the same way that it would be absurd to assert that the sandcastle came together by dumb luck, it is absurd and blind to assert that genetic code, the human mind, and everything in creation seen and unseen came together by dumb luck, no intelligence involved.

In fact, believing that is a form of blindness. Not physical blindness obviously but a different type of blindness. You don't see that now because you're still an atheist. If/when that changes, you will realize that you once were blind. And by the way, debating this on the Internet is probably not going to change your mind, so imo it's kind of a waste of time. If you sincerely, truly want to be convinced then my advice to all atheists is to change your attitude, because God is the one who opens people's eyes, but it's probably not gonna happen with a prideful, stubborn, "I demand proof!!!!!1" type of attitude.

What changes these deadlocks is people agreeing to forgive the differences first. After we remove those distractions, it is easier to see and communicate more clearly and work the rest out. If people do not first forgive each other, this can go in endless circles. We need to find what focus is motivating us, make peace with that, the rest will follow.

 

[buttercup]

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

How do you, as an atheist, account for logic itself? You do realize that logic is objective, right?

Can't logic be systematic without relying on a personified God?

If we define abuse or harm as violating Consent, and what is good or beneficial would be naturally desired and consented to, isn't that sufficient to explain human conscience.

We desire that which brings greatest mutual benefit, peace and satisfaction.
We avoid what causes fear, distress or threats to life, freedom, security or well being.

Our sense of justice is the balance between individual freedom / liberty / free choice / consent
And Peace /security / order collectively.

Can't Truth and Justice be discussed WITHOUT personifying these as
God's truth/laws but as Universal truth/laws and WITHOUT symbolizing Justice embodied in humanity as Jesus.

Can't we agree on concepts?

Logic involves intelligence and laws that are objectively true. In other words, true for everyone regardless of whether one goes along with it or not. Universal objective truths are not man-made, they are discovered by man, not created.

No, I don't believe that logic can be systematic without a lawgiver. An impersonal higher power does not have a mind, a will, intention. In fact to me the whole idea of an impersonal God or higher power doesn't make any sense at all. It's really not that different than atheism.

I'm sorry for only answering the first part of your post, I don't have a lot of time right now to give a lengthy reply to all of it.