"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. Gravity is not in contradiction with reality but 1) neither are the miracles of God, most of which I can quickly think of natural explanations for ...

Then those are definitionally not miracles, genius.

(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and 2) there is no evidence for gravity's existence besides looking at its effects and saying it must have a natural cause that isn't divine. It is a force that cannot be measured with any human sense (which senses you said are your god-finding tools) or any scientific tool. (A gravimeter could as easily be measuring the divine finger pressure as it is measuring a wave/particles/dark matter etc. that can only be conjectural at this point since it is wholly unseen.)

You do understand why people don't add in the god-variable when doing any experiment, right? Actually I already know you don't, so here's why: doing so would be adding a variable which cannot be accounted for. That's why we don't assume 'gawdunnit' when running a test, because we can't actually prove that variable even exists. If we add in a variable which cannot be demonstrated and thus has no value it does nothing but waste time.
In the future, would you suggest I run experiments with the assumption that leprechauns were involved? That wizards were affecting the outcome, perhaps?

(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Put another way, perhaps you should then reconsider archaeology/Bible prophecy/the testimony of others, etc. - anything that could be tested rigorously by you in addition to your senses.

Archaeology can indeed be rigorously performed and continues to be so and unfortunately for Jew-god, there has never been any evidence which corroborated any of the founding myths a la exodus. Biblical prophecy can't really be rigorously tested, but we now it got most of it's shit wrong, like the constant prophesying of all of Israel's enemies being completely destroyed over and over for instance. The shit it got right was already incredibly apparent at the time of writing or was probably written after events. And unfortunately for you, personal testimony doesn't really mean jack-shit; it is well known to be the least reliable form of evidence, and is faulty due to the nature of faulty human recollection and biases and you can't really test testimony unless you have other evidence to begin with, plus for every guy who saw a white light and Jewsus, you've got guys who claimed to have seen Vishnu and Allah.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
05-02-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Unfortunately or fortunately for our discussion, your statements, including "Here I be" are an assertion that you find it self-evident that you exist and that such is the best evidence you have. Until you provide other proof (note how I use the term "prove" rather "evidence", just as atheists like to use that term when asking me about God's existence) - you may not exist at all, I'm afraid.

You need it to be an assertion in order for this latest "atheists do the same thing theists do" argument. It's not. "Here I be" is my evidence. I can send messages, interact with the physical world, be seen and verified by others, etc. I can do this consistently and clearly, without any special "interpretation" from my believers." Certainly, "Here I'm not" is also possible. But there's not a whole lot of evidence to show I'm not here. So, there's that.

Present your evidence that shows I do not exist.

We will weigh the two sides and come to a conclusion. So far, your only offering is "all you have is your feelings." You need to re-read my post. I CLEARLY stated my feelings have no bearing on whether I exist or not. I'm either here, or I'm not. I'm not emotionally invested either way (unlike theism, which has a huge emotional investment). My emotions have no affect on the outcome of the truth. The rest of your post attacks this "you assert" straw man, and is irrelevant.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And anyone other than yourself who wants to provide evidence that you do exist is going to eventually have to say, "It's self evident Guitar Nut exists!" Therefore, you may reply if you like, but I would stand on my testimony that 1) it is self-evident to me (and to billions of others) that God exists 2) the Bible must be accurate when it describes denial of God's existence as one of two things--either denial on the part of an atheist or the atheist has not yet had a personal encounter with God.

No, they eventually won't have to say anything. I can provide physical evidence of my existence. I can provide consistent, repeatable results that will not change from observer to observer. If I am seen by 100 people, all 100 will have the same experience. All 100 will see a single instance of me. You are welcome to provide counter-evidence. We will weigh both sets of evidence and determine which case is stronger. If your evidence is great, then I don't exist. Nothing changes; I'm ok with either outcome.

Your second point is unfalsifiable nonsense. Swap the word god with magic elf and you get the same results.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. If is true as you say that "The bigger and more contradictory to reality the claim is, the more evidence I will require..." then don't spend a lot of time "believing in":

*gravity as being anything besides a mathematical abstraction or the hand of the divine
*dark matter
*the Oort Cloud
*love
*altruism
*etc.

I don't believe in any of these things. I'm not sure what your point is. More of the "atheists think just like theists" salad bar?

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what you meant to write instead, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't want to waste your time arguing asinine claims. (Luckily for you I'm here to argue against the special knowledge people have at TTA that no god has ever interacted with us or space aliens in the last 15 Billion years or so, ever.)

No. I don't waste my time when there's no evidence. Over time, I've come to discover certain types of claims always lack evidence, and are based on an emotional need.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And the reason you find it asinine to deny your existence when someone says you're a figment of their imagination is... wait for it... you find it self-evident you exist. It is self-evident to me and to most people that God exists. Shifting the goal posts to argue Pascal's wager or "There are millions of gods, Q!" is simply that.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have evidence I exist. My feelings don't matter.

This is the classic philosophical nuke that apologists run to when all else fails. "You can't know 100% if you exist" makes for interesting water cooler talk. Of course I can't know 100% that I exist. If that is the last piece of ground you have to stand on, enjoy. Meanwhile, my existent/non-existent self is going to work to work/not-work at my desk/non-desk.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
05-02-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
Hey Q, could you quit being a douche and using the phrase "wait for it". You're not Barney Stinson, nor are you unveiling some glorious revelation of knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(04-02-2015 01:08 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Very good points, and I applaud your reasoning powers here. You raised three issues:

1. If we're all brains in a jar or even we're all your imagination and one brain in a jar, we/you have imagined a world with moral accountability and consequences for moral actions. That lines up with the Christian view of judgment after this Matrix is reset/you/we die. How might the Architect put it? "The function of the One is now to return you to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program into judgment mode."

I don't need to imagine a world with moral accountability and consequences for moral actions, I'm living in one. I am accountable for my actions. What makes you think that I'm not? Anything I do has more or less consequences on others, and it directly and indirectly affects their lives, as well as mine, of course.

(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. I am sorry you are currently unable to sense or experience god. I do know He has great timing and even irony in the way He orchestrates lives, and that when you do experience Him, you'll both know and (please!) remember my admonition to obey what you hear and see.

I did "experience him", in the sense that I have not always been an atheist, I was a believer for most of my life.

(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. Gravity is not in contradiction with reality but 1) neither are the miracles of God, most of which I can quickly think of natural explanations for and 2) there is no evidence for gravity's existence besides looking at its effects and saying it must have a natural cause that isn't divine. It is a force that cannot be measured with any human sense (which senses you said are your god-finding tools) or any scientific tool. (A gravimeter could as easily be measuring the divine finger pressure as it is measuring a wave/particles/dark matter etc. that can only be conjectural at this point since it is wholly unseen.)

Miracles are in contradiction with reality by their very definition. After all, if they weren't in contradiction, they would be considered regular or usual occurrences in the natural world. So yes, they're in contradiction. If you can think of a miracle that can be explained naturalistically, then it can be no longer called a miracle in the literal sense.

Whether gravity can be sensed by our senses is irrelevant, although I disagree, because we study things that sometimes are not possible to be sensed, yet they exist. Let's take Radio waves: you don't see, taste, smell, hear or touch them, yet you can listen to music on the radio.

Also, gravity has been explained, I won't say fully because I'm not totally into the subject, but I think we know enough to be able to explain the how and why.

(04-02-2015 10:36 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Put another way, perhaps you should then reconsider archaeology/Bible prophecy/the testimony of others, etc. - anything that could be tested rigorously by you in addition to your senses.

Those things are not on the same level. Archaeology is science and it is based on actual discoveries with concrete evidence. I don't know of any Bible prophecy being proved though. And I consider personal testimony to be irrelevant if the claim is not something ordinary or believable, because if you tell me you passed an exam without studying, I could believe it or not, it would be weird but possible. However if you tell me you have a giant pink elephant in your garage, I will dismiss it until you can prove it to me.

My honest feedback:

1. Yes, you agree with me with have moral accountability here. However, it is also clearly imbalanced "here". There is reconciliation and judgment to come.

2. One of the differences between radio waves and gravity is that we can't presently understand how gravity can "pull" or "push" over a distance or bend space, so we have to conjecture a force we cannot detect. My point is that miracles are the same--people can turn water into wine, Jesus can do it quickly. And that's all. You accept that gravity exists because you can see its effects and presume a cause. Of course there's a cause and I don't fault your teleology there. I can see Jesus by His effects.

3. Archaeology and other sciences line up beautifully with many Bible prophecies. But the problem of scope discussed here is this--I don't believe in pink elephants either until they are proved, but if we're talking about theism we're talking about billions of people who have elephants you can't see.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(05-02-2015 09:20 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Unfortunately or fortunately for our discussion, your statements, including "Here I be" are an assertion that you find it self-evident that you exist and that such is the best evidence you have. Until you provide other proof (note how I use the term "prove" rather "evidence", just as atheists like to use that term when asking me about God's existence) - you may not exist at all, I'm afraid.

You need it to be an assertion in order for this latest "atheists do the same thing theists do" argument. It's not. "Here I be" is my evidence. I can send messages, interact with the physical world, be seen and verified by others, etc. I can do this consistently and clearly, without any special "interpretation" from my believers." Certainly, "Here I'm not" is also possible. But there's not a whole lot of evidence to show I'm not here. So, there's that.

Present your evidence that shows I do not exist.

We will weigh the two sides and come to a conclusion. So far, your only offering is "all you have is your feelings." You need to re-read my post. I CLEARLY stated my feelings have no bearing on whether I exist or not. I'm either here, or I'm not. I'm not emotionally invested either way (unlike theism, which has a huge emotional investment). My emotions have no affect on the outcome of the truth. The rest of your post attacks this "you assert" straw man, and is irrelevant.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And anyone other than yourself who wants to provide evidence that you do exist is going to eventually have to say, "It's self evident Guitar Nut exists!" Therefore, you may reply if you like, but I would stand on my testimony that 1) it is self-evident to me (and to billions of others) that God exists 2) the Bible must be accurate when it describes denial of God's existence as one of two things--either denial on the part of an atheist or the atheist has not yet had a personal encounter with God.

No, they eventually won't have to say anything. I can provide physical evidence of my existence. I can provide consistent, repeatable results that will not change from observer to observer. If I am seen by 100 people, all 100 will have the same experience. All 100 will see a single instance of me. You are welcome to provide counter-evidence. We will weigh both sets of evidence and determine which case is stronger. If your evidence is great, then I don't exist. Nothing changes; I'm ok with either outcome.

Your second point is unfalsifiable nonsense. Swap the word god with magic elf and you get the same results.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. If is true as you say that "The bigger and more contradictory to reality the claim is, the more evidence I will require..." then don't spend a lot of time "believing in":

*gravity as being anything besides a mathematical abstraction or the hand of the divine
*dark matter
*the Oort Cloud
*love
*altruism
*etc.

I don't believe in any of these things. I'm not sure what your point is. More of the "atheists think just like theists" salad bar?

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I think what you meant to write instead, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't want to waste your time arguing asinine claims. (Luckily for you I'm here to argue against the special knowledge people have at TTA that no god has ever interacted with us or space aliens in the last 15 Billion years or so, ever.)

No. I don't waste my time when there's no evidence. Over time, I've come to discover certain types of claims always lack evidence, and are based on an emotional need.

(04-02-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And the reason you find it asinine to deny your existence when someone says you're a figment of their imagination is... wait for it... you find it self-evident you exist. It is self-evident to me and to most people that God exists. Shifting the goal posts to argue Pascal's wager or "There are millions of gods, Q!" is simply that.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have evidence I exist. My feelings don't matter.

This is the classic philosophical nuke that apologists run to when all else fails. "You can't know 100% if you exist" makes for interesting water cooler talk. Of course I can't know 100% that I exist. If that is the last piece of ground you have to stand on, enjoy. Meanwhile, my existent/non-existent self is going to work to work/not-work at my desk/non-desk.

Are you are aware that all of your statements in that post can be applied to Jesus Christ? I can present to you 100 people with testimonies of encounters with the living, active Christ. I can provide you with many other evidences as well. Conversion requires a spiritual actuation as the individual is touched by God, but people get converted going to church and meeting 100 other such people.

And here's the other thing. If you recognize the great burden of proof I have to prove you don't exist, when every piece of evidence that you provide (look, 100 people see me and Q, isn't it SELF-EVIDENT that those 100 persons exist?) and each of the other 100 people now has to assert it is self-evident to THEM that they exist and see you, why do you feel you can prove there is no god who exists, say, behind Alpha Centauri where you cannot see Him with your telescope? In other words, how do you KNOW? All atheists seem to be able to say with certainty at TTA is since it isn't evident to them that God exists, he doesn't exist or likely doesn't exist in the known universe or beyond. How convenient that must be--not!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(05-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you are aware that all of your statements in that post can be applied to Jesus Christ? I can present to you 100 people with testimonies of encounters with the living, active Christ. I can provide you with many other evidences as well. Conversion requires a spiritual actuation as the individual is touched by God, but people get converted going to church and meeting 100 other such people.

That's truly funny.

>I can provide consistent, repeatable results that will not change from observer to observer.
This right here puts me leagues beyond Jesus.

I don't require apologetics, wordplay, philosophy, and personal anecdotes to convince people I exist. There are not thousands of sects arguing about what I said, what it meant, what I looked like, whether or not I was a god, or a god son, or both. That's probably because I actually exist, which gives everyone a consistent point of reference.

Place a quarter on the table. I'll walk up, slide it across the table, and then introduce myself. Do this for 100 people and the results will be the same. That's more tangible proof than your god has ever been capable of providing... and I'm not even an all-powerful being (unless holding a guitar). That same experiment with your god would go as follows:

"The quarter moved."
"The quarter didn't move, but there's a reason for that."
"I looked away, and when I looked back, the quarter was gone."
"He moved it with his right hand."
"He was formless and didn't have hands."
"I moved it, because that was his will, therefore he moved the quarter."
"I felt the quarter moving even though it didn't move."
"The quarter didn't move for you because you didn't open your heart to it."
"Oh, it doesn't work this way."
"He hates quarters, he'll never agree to this."

(05-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And here's the other thing. If you recognize the great burden of proof I have to prove you don't exist, when every piece of evidence that you provide (look, 100 people see me and Q, isn't it SELF-EVIDENT that those 100 persons exist?) and each of the other 100 people now has to assert it is self-evident to THEM that they exist and see you, why do you feel you can prove there is no god who exists, say, behind Alpha Centauri where you cannot see Him with your telescope? In other words, how do you KNOW? All atheists seem to be able to say with certainty at TTA is since it isn't evident to them that God exists, he doesn't exist or likely doesn't exist in the known universe or beyond. How convenient that must be--not!

Quote me where I said I can prove there is no god. Or is that more words being put in my mouth? By the way, you cannot disprove anything when adhering to your 100% rule. Of what good, then, is the rule, other than to open a very big door for hard-to-sell ideas like gods and the supernatural? All sorts of crazy things might be out there in the universe and beyond. I should believe in whatever I can dream up, simply because I can't know for certain it doesn't exist. A planet made of pudding sounds cool. I don't know, and I certainly don't want to be unreasonable. It's probably out there. Somewhere.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
06-02-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(05-02-2015 05:10 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you are aware that all of your statements in that post can be applied to Jesus Christ? I can present to you 100 people with testimonies of encounters with the living, active Christ. I can provide you with many other evidences as well. Conversion requires a spiritual actuation as the individual is touched by God, but people get converted going to church and meeting 100 other such people.

That's truly funny.

>I can provide consistent, repeatable results that will not change from observer to observer.
This right here puts me leagues beyond Jesus.

I don't require apologetics, wordplay, philosophy, and personal anecdotes to convince people I exist. There are not thousands of sects arguing about what I said, what it meant, what I looked like, whether or not I was a god, or a god son, or both. That's probably because I actually exist, which gives everyone a consistent point of reference.

Place a quarter on the table. I'll walk up, slide it across the table, and then introduce myself. Do this for 100 people and the results will be the same. That's more tangible proof than your god has ever been capable of providing... and I'm not even an all-powerful being (unless holding a guitar). That same experiment with your god would go as follows:

"The quarter moved."
"The quarter didn't move, but there's a reason for that."
"I looked away, and when I looked back, the quarter was gone."
"He moved it with his right hand."
"He was formless and didn't have hands."
"I moved it, because that was his will, therefore he moved the quarter."
"I felt the quarter moving even though it didn't move."
"The quarter didn't move for you because you didn't open your heart to it."
"Oh, it doesn't work this way."
"He hates quarters, he'll never agree to this."

(05-02-2015 03:15 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And here's the other thing. If you recognize the great burden of proof I have to prove you don't exist, when every piece of evidence that you provide (look, 100 people see me and Q, isn't it SELF-EVIDENT that those 100 persons exist?) and each of the other 100 people now has to assert it is self-evident to THEM that they exist and see you, why do you feel you can prove there is no god who exists, say, behind Alpha Centauri where you cannot see Him with your telescope? In other words, how do you KNOW? All atheists seem to be able to say with certainty at TTA is since it isn't evident to them that God exists, he doesn't exist or likely doesn't exist in the known universe or beyond. How convenient that must be--not!

Quote me where I said I can prove there is no god. Or is that more words being put in my mouth? By the way, you cannot disprove anything when adhering to your 100% rule. Of what good, then, is the rule, other than to open a very big door for hard-to-sell ideas like gods and the supernatural? All sorts of crazy things might be out there in the universe and beyond. I should believe in whatever I can dream up, simply because I can't know for certain it doesn't exist. A planet made of pudding sounds cool. I don't know, and I certainly don't want to be unreasonable. It's probably out there. Somewhere.

For those people fortunate enough to encounter God then not reject Him, we don't need sophistry or anecdotes to know Him. Anyone who has Jesus knows the Father as well. I'm telling you about God, a friend, constant help and life guide.

You are talking a good game about a quarter in a hypothetical bar and 100 hypothetical persons since you are an avatar I respond to online--but you are missing my main point. We can prove in a court of law that you are a legal person, of course, but never that you exist or that the court itself exists. Many commentators including Christian professors and attorneys-at-law have said we can document Jesus as a legal person, too, but ultimately your response to fundamental questions of objective existence is "but it's self-evident". Why is it objective existence is under question? Because in this very thread is talk of brains in a jar and matrices.

Thus, you and any other atheist who chooses to do so is being an intolerant bully when a person says God is self-existent in their knowledge and you give them grief. And if you really don't know that it's more reasonable for God to exist than a planet made of pudding (really, you don't know that there are a near-infinite number of heavenly bodies but they tend to adhere best when they are certain elements in composition?)...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2015, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2015 06:04 AM by guitar_nut.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For those people fortunate enough to encounter God then not reject Him, we don't need sophistry or anecdotes to know Him. Anyone who has Jesus knows the Father as well. I'm telling you about God, a friend, constant help and life guide.

I have no more rejected your god than I've rejected any other god. I cannot reject something that does not exist.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Many commentators including Christian professors and attorneys-at-law have said we can document Jesus as a legal person, too...

That's interesting as there's still a pretty fierce debate over whether he even existed at all, regardless of any religious claims.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ... but ultimately your response to fundamental questions of objective existence is "but it's self-evident". Why is it objective existence is under question? Because in this very thread is talk of brains in a jar and matrices.

Now you're lying. I have never said my existence is self-evident. That's a terrible argument. My existence is well-suggested through good evidence, evidence that doesn't require word play, conditions, bunk philosophy, or presupposition. My quarter analogy is very relevant. When a real point of reference doesn't exist, you cannot have consistent evidence. At the end of the day, I really don't care if I exist or not; the experience is what it is. But at least the evidence of my existence is far more consistent than that of any god. Besides, YOU CAN'T KNOW (that's important, right???). You have no idea if the properties of the universe change beyond what we can observe from Earth. So anything goes, really. Unless... you'd like to admit there are other tools for attempting to determine what's reasonable and what isn't. It sounds like you don't. 100% rule it is, then.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thus, you and any other atheist who chooses to do so is being an intolerant bully when a person says God is self-existent in their knowledge and you give them grief. And if you really don't know that it's more reasonable for God to exist than a planet made of pudding (really, you don't know that there are a near-infinite number of heavenly bodies but they tend to adhere best when they are certain elements in composition?)...

Spare me the bully shit. I won't be swallowing someone else's bullshit just to be nice. "More reasonable" is very subjective; I'll go ahead and make an assertion, then. A god making a baby to be sacrificed so he can forgive his creations is not more probable than the existence of planet pudding.

I am not intolerant. I demand evidence. Not crafty sentences, not "interpretations," not personal anecdotes or assertions... evidence. See, the problem with your "you can't know" viewpoint is that it swings both ways. So either we ALL "can't know," (which negates all of your evidence) or we can all admit there are other tools beyond "self-evident" for making a reasonable determination of what is true and what is not. Take your pick. Either way, it strangely remains easier to prove the existence of a tree than the existence of a god.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
07-02-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
When a person is saying a god is self existent, they are lying, in much the same way they can profess to know that alien fish are swimming around in the middle of the sun.

Its not something that they can know.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(07-02-2015 08:31 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When a person is saying a god is self existent, they are lying, in much the same way they can profess to know that alien fish are swimming around in the middle of the sun.

Its not something that they can know.

And would that statement further apply to your own self-knowledge of your existence or not?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: