What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
5,649
Points
1,830
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. :dunno:
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.
Well then, who did create your gods? You may find that question audacious because you're still a religionist. When you discover the error of your ways, you will realize the depth of your indoctrination.

Yes, the ''I demand proof'', worldview is a failing of those who don't accept ''... because I say so'', claims. Thus, you must admit to being prideful and stubborn in regard to your disbelief in the gidsbof Shintoism.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
1,271
Points
893

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

In fact, it is now thought the omebas first developed in hydrothermal vents in the ocean. I have never heard it was in a pond but religious people can use that term attempting to deride the evolution process.

Remember doofy, you are ignorant to what evolution means and sadly, ever time you worship a ghost, you exhibit the same ignorance.
Don't try being smart with me. I deal with ignorant godbotherers every day.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
1,271
Points
893
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. :dunno:
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.

Here's something which will make it clear about God. There is no God and never has been. To speak of him like it's fact is absurd. Not one person has ever produced evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
As for your concept of God, don't make me vomit. That, like everything else about God, is in your mind. To believe anything other than that is embracing delusions.
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
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. :dunno:
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.
Well then, who did create your gods? You may find that question audacious because you're still a religionist. When you discover the error of your ways, you will realize the depth of your indoctrination.

Yes, the ''I demand proof'', worldview is a failing of those who don't accept ''... because I say so'', claims. Thus, you must admit to being prideful and stubborn in regard to your disbelief in the gidsbof Shintoism.

I guess I gave you too much credit, I thought you could do much better than that. That response was basically the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I? La La La La La"

As for the second thing you said, that is disingenuous. There are tons of books on these topics out there, and lots of people who devote their life to apologetics. And the Bible itself tells believers to be ready with answers for those who ask questions. So it never has been a "just because I say so" situation. The answers are there if you are sincere in finding them. If you are sincere and genuine then you wouldn't even spend so much time here bickering and mocking other views, you would be doing research on your own, reading books and doing searches on the Internet to find the answers you're looking for.

Intentionally or not, you missed the point. There's nothing wrong with wanting proof, it's a very good thing to ask questions and seek the truth. What I was talking about was a bad attitude. Someone who is genuinely interested in truth doesn't arrogantly demand others to prove everything to them, while mocking and knee-jerkingly dismissing all responses. Seek and you will find! And the reason you will find is because IF (keyword: if) you are sincere, intellectually honest and with a modicum of humility, God will open your eyes. You will probably mock and laugh at that, but just remember what I said.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,825
Reaction score
1,638
Points
140
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?"
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.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.
You failed to identify the error in the Paradox.

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?
Thanks for going the extra mile. Getting ding so exposed and forthcoming is no small feat. Bravo. Your success has now drawn in reinforcements.. More work is your reward, LOL :p
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
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. :dunno:
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.

Here's something which will make it clear about God. There is no God and never has been. To speak of him like it's fact is absurd. Not one person has ever produced evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
As for your concept of God, don't make me vomit. That, like everything else about God, is in your mind. To believe anything other than that is embracing delusions.

I haven't read all your posts, but based on the few I have read, I'm seeing a pattern with you. You never actually address or refute any points, you just reply over and over again with "there is no god." Or you throw out some angry, bitter words about "god botherers."

By the way, your position is self-defeating. When you definitively declare "there is no god" you're making a truth claim. You're not saying "it is my belief that God does not exist", you're stating it as an objective truth. Well first of all, according to your worldview, our brains are just an accidental collection of atoms, and atheism cannot account for reason or logic. So in your worldview, none of our convictions are actually reliable, including your conviction that there is no God, and that this universe and all of creation is a result of dumb luck.

Also, when you make the truth claim "there is no God" you're not only assuming that your mind is reliable, but you're assuming that you know everything there is to know. When you state it the way you do (not as lack of belief, but as a definitive declaration, an assertion) you're acting as if you don't have just a tiny sliver of knowledge in comparison to everything there is to know, like the rest of us mere mortals... but you are all-knowing, omniscient, which would make YOU God. lol. And if you're God, then your statement "there is no God" is self-refuting.

Thanks for playing!
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
5,649
Points
1,830
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. :dunno:
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.
Well then, who did create your gods? You may find that question audacious because you're still a religionist. When you discover the error of your ways, you will realize the depth of your indoctrination.

Yes, the ''I demand proof'', worldview is a failing of those who don't accept ''... because I say so'', claims. Thus, you must admit to being prideful and stubborn in regard to your disbelief in the gidsbof Shintoism.

I guess I gave you too much credit, I thought you could do much better than that. That response was basically the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I? La La La La La"

As for the second thing you said, that is disingenuous. There are tons of books on these topics out there, and lots of people who devote their life to apologetics. And the Bible itself tells believers to be ready with answers for those who ask questions. So it never has been a "just because I say so" situation. The answers are there if you are sincere in finding them. If you are sincere and genuine then you wouldn't even spend so much time here bickering and mocking other views, you would be doing research on your own, reading books and doing searches on the Internet to find the answers you're looking for.

Intentionally or not, you missed the point. There's nothing wrong with wanting proof, it's a very good thing to ask questions and seek the truth. What I was talking about was a bad attitude. Someone who is genuinely interested in truth doesn't arrogantly demand others to prove everything to them, while mocking and knee-jerkingly dismissing all responses. Seek and you will find! And the reason you will find is because IF (keyword: if) you are sincere, intellectually honest and with a modicum of humility, God will open your eyes. You will probably mock and laugh at that, but just remember what I said.
I guess you had hopes your online proselytizing would yield positive results? Books about apologetics are intended to do what? Convince the believers what they want to believe is true? That's hardly seeking truth. Thats seeking to confirm predefined biases.

I think you missed the point. There is every reason to hold believers to a standard other than, ''... because the bible says so''. There are better standards than that, the standards of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of religious doctrine must show why their source material establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
34,062
Reaction score
3,950
Points
1,130
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. :dunno:

All I got from your post was that you accept something, so you find it shocking someone would go against that.

Believing is believing. It's literally deciding to accept something without any clue whether you're right or not.

I find that truly weird.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
34,062
Reaction score
3,950
Points
1,130
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.

And hermaphrodites.
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
I guess you had hopes your online proselytizing would yield positive results? Books about apologetics are intended to do what? Convince the believers what they want to believe is true? That's hardly seeking truth. Thats seeking to confirm predefined biases.

No, again you completely misunderstood. First of all, apologetics is not for believers, it is for non-believers or seekers. It's for people who are looking for answers to questions. The reason I brought that up was to say that it's good to ask questions and to want evidence, but my point was that someone who is sincerely and truly interested in finding the answers is not going to be bickering on USMB, but going out there and doing a search on your own. Again, reading books, doing an Internet search, as opposed to nonstop arguing here and then mocking or flippantly rejecting any replies you get.

I think you missed the point. There is every reason to hold believers to a standard other than, ''... because the bible says so''. There are better standards than that, the standards of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

I just finished saying in my last reply to you that it's not about "because I say so " or "because the Bible says so." Did you even read my post? There are people who devote their lives to answering these questions in depth… but you're probably not gonna get that here on USMB.


Proponents of religious doctrine must show why their source material establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

Yes, I never stated otherwise, so again I'm wondering if you even read my post.

There are plenty of reasons why I am a Christian and not a Hindu or Muslim or anything else. It would really take too long for me to list everything here, but for now I'll tell you ONE of the things that put me on the path toward becoming a Christian. Pretty much everything you see happening in the world today is what the Bible said would happen, more than 2000 years ago. We are heading towards global government, just as the Bible said. There are evil and corrupt people running this world, and it seems to be getting worse, just as the Bible said. There are so many other things, but suffice it to say that no other religious book comes anywhere close to the amount of fulfilled prophecies in the bible, and that's just one thing, there are numerous other reasons that set the Bible apart.

But it's not just about the Bible. That seems to be a presumption on your part. There are lots of reasons to believe, and again, if one is sincere and genuinely wants to find the truth, they will do their own search for truth instead of always demanding others to prove everything to them. That's how just about every single atheist I've ever encountered is... It's the same attitude that I mentioned before, and that type of mindset is blinding.
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,825
Reaction score
1,638
Points
140
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.

And hermaphrodites.
Life with no screwing? Blasphemy! :stir:
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
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.

And hermaphrodites.

Sounds like you haven't read Genesis 1. In the very beginning, this world was a very different place. Everything was very good, basically paradise. There was no disease, weird mutations, deformities or anything like that. Things like that came later, and what initially caused the downward spiral was the fall of man, when sin came into the world.

But you probably already knew that. ;)
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173

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

In fact, it is now thought the omebas first developed in hydrothermal vents in the ocean. I have never heard it was in a pond but religious people can use that term attempting to deride the evolution process.

Remember doofy, you are ignorant to what evolution means and sadly, ever time you worship a ghost, you exhibit the same ignorance.
Don't try being smart with me. I deal with ignorant godbotherers every day.
LOL you never heard it was a pond, how totally ignorant. You might want to Google Darwin's letter to Hooker and learn


Consider yourself educated kiddy
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
All I got from your post was that you accept something, so you find it shocking someone would go against that.

Believing is believing. It's literally deciding to accept something without any clue whether you're right or not.

I find that truly weird.

No, if that's what you got, you obviously missed my point entirely.

I don't find it shocking or weird at all that you believe what you believe. I used to be a nonbeliever, I know exactly where you're coming from.

It was your question "who created god?" Were you sincerely unaware of the Christian position that God is eternal?

Or did you already know that and were you trying to get an answer on how that works?
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
1,271
Points
893

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

In fact, it is now thought the omebas first developed in hydrothermal vents in the ocean. I have never heard it was in a pond but religious people can use that term attempting to deride the evolution process.

Remember doofy, you are ignorant to what evolution means and sadly, ever time you worship a ghost, you exhibit the same ignorance.
Don't try being smart with me. I deal with ignorant godbotherers every day.
LOL you never heard it was a pond, how totally ignorant. You might want to Google Darwin's letter to Hooker and learn


Consider yourself educated kiddy

In fact darwin never studied the beginnings of evolution. It was evolution itself he wrote his book on which he confirmed.
So don't start this smart arse attitude because there's not a godbotherer on earth can educate me or have anything to offer.

But if you want to continue with your justifications for a god and your childish I suits, go right ahead. I'll wait here.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
1,271
Points
893
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. :dunno:
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.

Here's something which will make it clear about God. There is no God and never has been. To speak of him like it's fact is absurd. Not one person has ever produced evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
As for your concept of God, don't make me vomit. That, like everything else about God, is in your mind. To believe anything other than that is embracing delusions.

I haven't read all your posts, but based on the few I have read, I'm seeing a pattern with you. You never actually address or refute any points, you just reply over and over again with "there is no god." Or you throw out some angry, bitter words about "god botherers."

By the way, your position is self-defeating. When you definitively declare "there is no god" you're making a truth claim. You're not saying "it is my belief that God does not exist", you're stating it as an objective truth. Well first of all, according to your worldview, our brains are just an accidental collection of atoms, and atheism cannot account for reason or logic. So in your worldview, none of our convictions are actually reliable, including your conviction that there is no God, and that this universe and all of creation is a result of dumb luck.

Also, when you make the truth claim "there is no God" you're not only assuming that your mind is reliable, but you're assuming that you know everything there is to know. When you state it the way you do (not as lack of belief, but as a definitive declaration, an assertion) you're acting as if you don't have just a tiny sliver of knowledge in comparison to everything there is to know, like the rest of us mere mortals... but you are all-knowing, omniscient, which would make YOU God. lol. And if you're God, then your statement "there is no God" is self-refuting.

Thanks for playing!

I'll reiterate it again for the benefit of the intellectually inferior.
There is no God and never has been I challenge anyone on earth to prove me wrong when they submit irrefutable evidence. There is no heaven or hell or Satan or one sceric of your stupid assumptions ever been proven.

If you had proof you would submit it in a heartbeat and you know it but I know you Don't. Faith does not equate to fact.
What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So don't dance around your childish justifications and ridicule my view. As arrogant as it sounds, I know I'm right and you people have nothing and never will. If you want to go on with this, go ahead. Every time you reply I get another whack at you.
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,369
Reaction score
3,282
Points
1,020
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. :dunno:
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.

Here's something which will make it clear about God. There is no God and never has been. To speak of him like it's fact is absurd. Not one person has ever produced evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
As for your concept of God, don't make me vomit. That, like everything else about God, is in your mind. To believe anything other than that is embracing delusions.

I haven't read all your posts, but based on the few I have read, I'm seeing a pattern with you. You never actually address or refute any points, you just reply over and over again with "there is no god." Or you throw out some angry, bitter words about "god botherers."

By the way, your position is self-defeating. When you definitively declare "there is no god" you're making a truth claim. You're not saying "it is my belief that God does not exist", you're stating it as an objective truth. Well first of all, according to your worldview, our brains are just an accidental collection of atoms, and atheism cannot account for reason or logic. So in your worldview, none of our convictions are actually reliable, including your conviction that there is no God, and that this universe and all of creation is a result of dumb luck.

Also, when you make the truth claim "there is no God" you're not only assuming that your mind is reliable, but you're assuming that you know everything there is to know. When you state it the way you do (not as lack of belief, but as a definitive declaration, an assertion) you're acting as if you don't have just a tiny sliver of knowledge in comparison to everything there is to know, like the rest of us mere mortals... but you are all-knowing, omniscient, which would make YOU God. lol. And if you're God, then your statement "there is no God" is self-refuting.

Thanks for playing!

I'll reiterate it again for the benefit of the intellectually inferior.
There is no God and never has been I challenge anyone on earth to prove me wrong when they submit irrefutable evidence. There is no heaven or hell or Satan or one sceric of your stupid assumptions ever been proven.

If you had proof you would submit it in a heartbeat and you know it but I know you Don't. Faith does not equate to fact.
What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So don't dance around your childish justifications and ridicule my view. As arrogant as it sounds, I know I'm right and you people have nothing and never will. If you want to go on with this, go ahead. Every time you reply I get another whack at you.

Thank you for proving my point, you demonstrated exactly what I said.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
11,128
Reaction score
669
Points
85
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?
There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.
How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?
I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.
But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.
How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.
And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.
You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?
I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.
If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.
Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.
Bravo:clap: for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.
I am happy that I pleased you. The faith I have - which I have never "preached" - is that good comes from bad. That is a fact. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's how we progress. That you can't see it is not my problem.

And as for your "gotcha" moment. You should have read the next sentence.

For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

You want me to quit defining your worldview as you try to define my worldview? No thanks. I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair. Which BTW is more proof that God is good. You can't shake the need for fairness or stop rationalizing that you are fair when you aren't. It's hardwired into you. And it's also the original sin.

I have no qualms with your expectation that the world can be an awful place. Just that you use it as an excuse to not believe in God. That's illogical. So we are right back where we started from.
I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners
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?
There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.
How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?
I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.
But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.
How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.
And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.
You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?
I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.
If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.
Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.
Bravo:clap: for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.
And yet you feel that you have the right to preach that absolutely nothing created absolutely everything.

Get treated
Seriously, I'm beginning to think you are daft?

Please link me to where I said what you suggested above or just stand there with pants around your ankles and your ass exposed.

Quite to the contrary, I made reference to The First Law of Thermodynamics, in evidencing the POSSIBILITY that the universe is eternal.

I suspect that you'll turn my disbelief in your God as evidence of what I believe rather than evidence of what I do not believe. It fits with your bastardized logic.
The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything. Except now you are babbling that everything always was.

You believe in nothing and that is why you are stuck where you are.
You appear to be confessing that God does not always practice compassion, and that there are some things he cannot accomplish without allowing the presence of pain.
No. I am trying to explain to you that you don't have complete information and God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. I know I don't have complete information, and neither do you. Rather, you have faith that you wish to pedal as fact. No sale.
Thanks, but cutting and pasting a sermon of double-talk will not give me to surrender my senses. The message that God is compassionate but he's not quite all-powerful and unable to deliver his imperfect creations to a perfect place without first torturing newborns... along with a few other outburst of hellfire and damnation.
There's no double talk on my part, amigo. You think the bad vastly outweighs the good. It doesn't. The good vastly outweighs the bad. You can't understand why suffering has to occur. It occurs because suffering is a natural part of existence in the material world just as death is a natural part of existence in the material world. If you are going to not believe in God because of suffering or because you don't have perfect hair, you should have first complained about having to die. You think it is logical that God should have created utopia or there can be no God. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation because you don't know why God created existence in the first place. He does. You think God can't be omnipotent unless he created utopia. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. You think God can't be good or compassionate because there is suffering and death. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. With infinite wisdom and goodness God created a world where good arises from bad such that we get to experience the full spectrum of existence and that is a very good thing for us to experience.
So existence is natural rather than God's creation... more double talk. Are you saying Omnipotent God can't alter what is natural? I enjoyed you wanting to make good of God's work because there's more good than bad. I can entertain that POSSIBILITY on a world scale or at least from vantage of one who lives in a privilidged country. But PRAY TELL, where does that scale tip for an infant who lives a twisted and painful life only to die at age five?
DOUBLE-TALK: The world that God gifted to us would be boring without pain and evil (necessary tools to deliver us to God's Perfect Place). In other words, once you pass all the test and suffer, be prepared for boredom.
The only double talk is coming from you as you are the one who wants a material world without suffering or challenges. You want boring now. I have no idea what lies ahead but since it won't be the material world I suspect it will be a different level of amazing. Because unlike you I find this level amazing. Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it.

Honestly, what a crock!
The crock is believing there can be no creator because you get to experience the full spectrum of existence. Rather than appreciate the gift that was given to you, you curse your own existence. Now that's a crock. I don't curse my existence. Can you cite an example of my doing so or will you point to my challenging your myths?
Your constant dishonest misrepresentation of my positions demonstrate an inability to honestly argue your convictions.

Continually, you toss strawmen (fallacy) for me to defend. It's becoming tiresome, and hence, I will simply footnote your straw and refuse to repeat myself.

God is faith, period. Quit preaching.
No. God is reality. Literally. As in existence. God IS. As in I AM which is a statement of existence. The first cause. The source of all reality. The material world is made up of mind stuff. I get that these things are what you believe but you should be careful how universally you declare what is simply your faith. You are beginning to sound like some dazed old man on the street corner mumbling about God.

Again... I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair.

If you keep arguing how bad everything is, I'll keep using that as a baseline. Because the moment you tell me how great existence is, that's the moment when your argument falls apart. So which is it? Is existence great or is it a burden? I believe most people believe existence is great but you'd never know it from your posts. I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.
(The red comments above are Blue Collar's.)

I'm sorry but your faith proves nothing but your faith.
Yet dingy has you wrapped around his finger. He owns you
.
The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything.
.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.
Dude the fact is that the blithering idiot physicist that proposed your dumb theory can not even prove mathematically that the universe even exist, and as a result of that they invented dark matter to make galaxies moving at 5 times light speed possible which also violates your science.

God wins
.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.

Dude the fact is that the blithering idiot physicist that proposed your dumb theory can not even prove mathematically that the universe even exist, and as a result of that they invented dark matter to make galaxies moving at 5 times light speed possible which also violates your science.

.
you did not answer the question ... has there ever been a time matter or energy have not existed - your proof.
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173

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

In fact, it is now thought the omebas first developed in hydrothermal vents in the ocean. I have never heard it was in a pond but religious people can use that term attempting to deride the evolution process.

Remember doofy, you are ignorant to what evolution means and sadly, ever time you worship a ghost, you exhibit the same ignorance.
Don't try being smart with me. I deal with ignorant godbotherers every day.
LOL you never heard it was a pond, how totally ignorant. You might want to Google Darwin's letter to Hooker and learn


Consider yourself educated kiddy

In fact darwin never studied the beginnings of evolution. It was evolution itself he wrote his book on which he confirmed.
So don't start this smart arse attitude because there's not a godbotherer on earth can educate me or have anything to offer.

But if you want to continue with your justifications for a god and your childish I suits, go right ahead. I'll wait here.
Darwin's letter to Hooker.

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

So kiddy consider yourself educated

Yawn
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173
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?
There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.
How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?
I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.
But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.
How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.
And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.
You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?
I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.
If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.
Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.
Bravo:clap: for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.
I am happy that I pleased you. The faith I have - which I have never "preached" - is that good comes from bad. That is a fact. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's how we progress. That you can't see it is not my problem.

And as for your "gotcha" moment. You should have read the next sentence.

For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

You want me to quit defining your worldview as you try to define my worldview? No thanks. I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair. Which BTW is more proof that God is good. You can't shake the need for fairness or stop rationalizing that you are fair when you aren't. It's hardwired into you. And it's also the original sin.

I have no qualms with your expectation that the world can be an awful place. Just that you use it as an excuse to not believe in God. That's illogical. So we are right back where we started from.
I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners
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?
There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.
How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?
I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.
But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.
How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.
And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.
You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?
I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.
If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.
Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.
Bravo:clap: for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.
And yet you feel that you have the right to preach that absolutely nothing created absolutely everything.

Get treated
Seriously, I'm beginning to think you are daft?

Please link me to where I said what you suggested above or just stand there with pants around your ankles and your ass exposed.

Quite to the contrary, I made reference to The First Law of Thermodynamics, in evidencing the POSSIBILITY that the universe is eternal.

I suspect that you'll turn my disbelief in your God as evidence of what I believe rather than evidence of what I do not believe. It fits with your bastardized logic.
The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything. Except now you are babbling that everything always was.

You believe in nothing and that is why you are stuck where you are.
You appear to be confessing that God does not always practice compassion, and that there are some things he cannot accomplish without allowing the presence of pain.
No. I am trying to explain to you that you don't have complete information and God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. I know I don't have complete information, and neither do you. Rather, you have faith that you wish to pedal as fact. No sale.
Thanks, but cutting and pasting a sermon of double-talk will not give me to surrender my senses. The message that God is compassionate but he's not quite all-powerful and unable to deliver his imperfect creations to a perfect place without first torturing newborns... along with a few other outburst of hellfire and damnation.
There's no double talk on my part, amigo. You think the bad vastly outweighs the good. It doesn't. The good vastly outweighs the bad. You can't understand why suffering has to occur. It occurs because suffering is a natural part of existence in the material world just as death is a natural part of existence in the material world. If you are going to not believe in God because of suffering or because you don't have perfect hair, you should have first complained about having to die. You think it is logical that God should have created utopia or there can be no God. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation because you don't know why God created existence in the first place. He does. You think God can't be omnipotent unless he created utopia. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. You think God can't be good or compassionate because there is suffering and death. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. With infinite wisdom and goodness God created a world where good arises from bad such that we get to experience the full spectrum of existence and that is a very good thing for us to experience.
So existence is natural rather than God's creation... more double talk. Are you saying Omnipotent God can't alter what is natural? I enjoyed you wanting to make good of God's work because there's more good than bad. I can entertain that POSSIBILITY on a world scale or at least from vantage of one who lives in a privilidged country. But PRAY TELL, where does that scale tip for an infant who lives a twisted and painful life only to die at age five?
DOUBLE-TALK: The world that God gifted to us would be boring without pain and evil (necessary tools to deliver us to God's Perfect Place). In other words, once you pass all the test and suffer, be prepared for boredom.
The only double talk is coming from you as you are the one who wants a material world without suffering or challenges. You want boring now. I have no idea what lies ahead but since it won't be the material world I suspect it will be a different level of amazing. Because unlike you I find this level amazing. Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it.

Honestly, what a crock!
The crock is believing there can be no creator because you get to experience the full spectrum of existence. Rather than appreciate the gift that was given to you, you curse your own existence. Now that's a crock. I don't curse my existence. Can you cite an example of my doing so or will you point to my challenging your myths?
Your constant dishonest misrepresentation of my positions demonstrate an inability to honestly argue your convictions.

Continually, you toss strawmen (fallacy) for me to defend. It's becoming tiresome, and hence, I will simply footnote your straw and refuse to repeat myself.

God is faith, period. Quit preaching.
No. God is reality. Literally. As in existence. God IS. As in I AM which is a statement of existence. The first cause. The source of all reality. The material world is made up of mind stuff. I get that these things are what you believe but you should be careful how universally you declare what is simply your faith. You are beginning to sound like some dazed old man on the street corner mumbling about God.

Again... I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair.

If you keep arguing how bad everything is, I'll keep using that as a baseline. Because the moment you tell me how great existence is, that's the moment when your argument falls apart. So which is it? Is existence great or is it a burden? I believe most people believe existence is great but you'd never know it from your posts. I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.
(The red comments above are Blue Collar's.)

I'm sorry but your faith proves nothing but your faith.
Yet dingy has you wrapped around his finger. He owns you
.
The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything.
.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.
Dude the fact is that the blithering idiot physicist that proposed your dumb theory can not even prove mathematically that the universe even exist, and as a result of that they invented dark matter to make galaxies moving at 5 times light speed possible which also violates your science.

God wins
.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.

Dude the fact is that the blithering idiot physicist that proposed your dumb theory can not even prove mathematically that the universe even exist, and as a result of that they invented dark matter to make galaxies moving at 5 times light speed possible which also violates your science.

.
you did not answer the question ... has there ever been a time matter or energy have not existed - your proof.
Do you have proof that matter and energy have always existed? You are too dumb to know that you infer the big bang which clearly points to a previous period.

Play on stupid
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List