Opposed to God or the idea of God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2017, 05:40 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 04:54 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Um, a lot of them have been proven to be wrong. Just off the top of my head, the Nile has never dried up. And before you say that it's just a prophesy that hasn't come true yet, read it in context with the rest of the chapter. It was lumped in with a bunch of stuff that was supposed to happen in the relatively near future (like Nebuchadnezzar attacking Egypt).

And that's not counting prophesies that are incredibly vague (wars and rumors of wars were happening before any book of the Bible was ever written) or parts of the Bible that "fulfill" other parts. If there is nothing external corroborating that story, it's entirely possible the "fulfillment" was just made up.



There are many contradictions in the Bible. The Gospels alone can't get the details of many stories straight, let alone who Jesus even is. My understanding is it was actually written between 700 BCE to 100ish CE, but I'll let one of our posters with a stronger background in history chime in on that.



Why did it have to "come from somewhere"? Now, I will admit that you can almost certainly ask me questions that will get me to say "I don't know" at a certain point, but me not having an answer to something doesn't mean the only possible explanation is "God". That's an argument from ignorance, which is one of those logical fallacies I mentioned. In case you disagree with me, lets take the same argument and apply it to something more mundane:

Lets say Alice is murdered. The police investigate the murder and find out she's going through a divorce. Naturally, their first suspect is her husband Bob. Now, they cannot actually find any proof that Bob committed the murder, but Bob doesn't have any way of proving his innocence. The prosecution decides to try the case. Bob's attorney asks what proof they have that his client is guilty, and the prosecution says "If it wasn't Bob, then who was it?"

You can't lock Bob up just because the defense hasn't found the real killer. It's not the defense's job to do the prosecution's job for them. The prosecution is asserting guilt and they need to prove it. Otherwise, it can (and should, and will) be dismissed.

So, back to the Cosmological Argument: if you have positive evidence that God exists, please, bring it forward. But you asking me "what was the first cause?",me saying "I don't know" doesn't suddenly mean Bob is guilty God exists; you haven't actually proven that.
As to contradictions,

I think, someone, I can't remember his (her?) name, seemed like a male I thought, answered this by copy/pasting a massive page from another internet site, so it would have taken a book to address each point, but I did answer two.

If there is one in particular you'd like to mention, then please do, and i'll address it. I hope you can understand that I cannot answer literally hundreds of copy/paste, which was presented to me, although, it was suggested to me by full circle that I should Smile I'm sorry, I can't, I don't have the time to dedicate to an internet site! But if there is one in particular, please bring it to my attention by posting it, and i'll answer it.

As to the creation of the universe, I think my last post summed it up well. Even physicists say it's outwith the realm of physics.

The answer is that God is the most logical explanation.

Of course you mean YOUR god. LOL
Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive.
The most logical answer is, we wait until science discovers more, not make up bullshit to fit your preconceived notions.

You CAN'T answer the lists as YOU LIED about no Biblical contradictions. There are countess contradictions and errors.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums...ic=13894.0

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:29 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Well well, the first law of thermodynamics tells us that when energy goes into a system, that the internal energy changes as per the law of conservation of energy,

And the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can be neither created or destroyed.

So you have a problem either way.

If the universe was 'big-banged' then where did the energy come from?

Same place your god got it

Quote:You see regardless of trying to go further back in time, you still encounter the same problem.

Which is exactly what I said regarding your god. It just moves the problem back a square without actually providing an answer.

By the way, if time began at the big bang then "before" that has no meaning so the question may not even make sense.

Quote:The fact of the matter is that physicists can't answer this: they say that it is outwith the realms of physics.

Case closed!

Theology can't answer it either. It says that it does but that is a vacuous claim. If we are ever to find an answer I'd bet on it coming from science since that's the only method we have that produces reliable results.

Quote:I would say that, to the lady (or gentleman?) who suggested about admitting the limitations, one would expect the same in return.

What I've seen is everybody saying "we don't know" and you saying "I know". Humility is not your strong suit.

Quote:It's right to say that God is the most obvious explanation for the creation of the universe, because it is. You can say it too Smile

It's right to say that magical pixies are the most obvious explanation. It has just as much evidence behind it. "God" is just a bandaid to cover areas of ignorance.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
09-10-2017, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 05:44 PM by Eagle.)
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:30 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 04:58 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Jesus is in the OT.

When people sacrificed lambs in the OT, they were signifying the coming of the lamb of God, that is Jesus.

People were saved exactly the same way in the OT as they were in the NT, as they are now. By believing in the coming Saviour, by believing in the Saviour who is here, and by believing in the Savior who came.

As for sinners being killed, Moses preached 120 years of salvation, but none of them believed. Sodom and Gomorrah rejected God, that's why the angels came to investigate.

The truth is, even the nicest guy on the planet is a sinner. Everyone, no matter how nice they are, does or has done something, even thinking evil about someone. That's how much God loves us, because we can't save ourselves (one sin makes us as guilty of all sins), He sent His only begotten Son (God in the flesh) who without sin, sacrificed Himself to pay a debt we can't.

Yes, God could have turned round and said, 'all is forgiven!', but God is a perfect moral God, and to do so would have defied His perfect moral position, so this is why the Jesus (God in the flesh) was purposed, because God loves us, He wants to forgive us, but He is a moral God, and cannot go against His nature.

So yes, people will perish, if they reject Jesus (and really, when people reject Jesus, it's because they don't want to give up their lives or their enjoyment of sin).

Jesus was not the lamb in the OT. The lamb was chosen in the OT during God's tirade of killing all of the Egyptian's first born because the lamb was a god of the Egyptians. Khnum, a sheep or ram headed god, was the Egyptian god of creation. By choosing a lamb for sacrificial blood and smearing it on the doors, it showcased the rejection of an Egyptian god and God therefore bypassed those who did this lamb's blood thing during his murderous rampage. It had zero to do with Jesus, that's what you call Xtians coming along and taking things *out of context.*

People reject Jesus in the same way you reject Zeus or Ganesh or any other deity. It has nothing to do with a desire to sin or not sin. I'm Irish and I could say you reject leprechauns because you don't like gold.
No, it's not true.

1. Jesus rejected Adams fig tree religion, sacrificing an innocent animal to clothe him.

2. Cain offered many of his treasures to the Lord, which were rejected (this is self righteous works), however Abel sacrificed a lamb, which symbolised the coming Savior. Abel's offering pleased the Lord, where as Cains was rejected.

Interestingly, Cain out of jealousy, later slew Abel. It's still the same today. People who boast of works (big charity events etc) get all the praise, but the humble Christian saved by faith, is looked down upon by many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 05:43 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 02:30 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Consider evolution, the reality is that there is no evidence for evolution, it's conjecture.
The reality is that there is well over a century and a half of amassed evidence in support of evolution, including direct observation of evolution occurring in the laboratory.

This isn't evolution. Evolution is evolving into a new species, ie a bacteria becoming a fish etc.

What happened here, in your example, is not evolution, but a variation in a species. It's still the same species. Much like a person can be born with an unusual birthmark, they are still a person.

When I say there's no proof of evolution, and when I say when people try to present truth, it's usually something like a bird becoming a slightly bigger version of a bird, is because it's true.

I say it, because when I speak, I speak of what I know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 05:44 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Eagle Wrote:  As to the creation of the universe, I think my last post summed it up well. Even physicists say it's outwith the realm of physics.

The answer is that God is the most logical explanation.

Why are you so obsessed with where the universe came from?

Are you just popping a god in there because you don't know and you can't stand not knowing?

That's what it looks like to me.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dom's post
09-10-2017, 05:44 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:29 PM)Eagle Wrote:  It's right to say that God is the most obvious explanation for the creation of the universe, because it is.

As was already pointed out to you, it requires a being of enormous complexity to exist prior to the universe. Where did this being come from? How was it created?

So, no, it isn't even remotely logical.

Quote:You can say it too Smile

No, saying that demonstrates the lack of rational thinking.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-10-2017, 05:44 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 01:49 PM)Eagle Wrote:  My own experience is that people who are atheists are against that which God stands for, but of course, there's always reasonable people who are exceptions to such observations...

In that case the, your "experience" (whatever that may be) has been misinterpreted by you. Atheists cannot be against "that which gods stand for", as they simply don't exist in the real world. Your particular God, and the thousands of other imaginary gods (that you apparently choose to ignore) are just mythical, supernatural entities conjured up thousands of years ago—due the intellectual frailties of the human mind at that time, and its incapacity to correctly comprehend the world it inhabited.

Quote:The first point being, was, how does one explain the creation of the universe, if not God?

LOL... not this tired old rhetoric again! Okay, try Abiogenesis for starters. It's yet to be fully proved, but it's certainly far more logical than imagining some imaginary, unevidenced supernatural entity created the universe. "Because gods" is a non-answer to any question about the as-yet unknown.

Quote:I'm curious how you could assert that God does not exist.

Too easy. Gods (plural) don't exist—other than in the fertile and confused minds of gullible humans. Can I ask you to prove that unicorns and fairies and leprechauns don't exist? You can't... I wonder why? Ditto your god.

Quote:Consider evolution, the reality is that there is no evidence for evolution, it's conjecture.

Of course there's evidence. You need to visit any major museum of natural history, and take a look at some of its fossil records. Just last month, a 275-million-year old marine fossil (an ophiuroid—a primitive version of the starfish we see today) was discovered in the middle of Western Australia. Which really makes a joke of the Christians' 6,000-year-old earth claim.

Quote:The Bible is almost 3/10ths prophecy, and the prophecy has never shown to be wrong yet.

If we assume that a prophecy is a divinely inspired utterance or revelation, or something that's declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation, then you've just proved that 3/10ths of your holy book is nothing more than a collection of guesses made when its authors thought the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. At any rate, not one of its purported "prophecies" has ever eventuated since they were made.

Quote:But, am I to take it to say that, despite the fact that God is the most logical explanation for the creation of the universe, you chose to reject that, anyway?

This is a classic non sequitur. You've made the presupposition that your god exists, and then ask us to justify our disbelief. Nope. You've failed at even a basic tenet of logic. Sorry.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:43 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Dr H Wrote:  The reality is that there is well over a century and a half of amassed evidence in support of evolution, including direct observation of evolution occurring in the laboratory.

This isn't evolution. Evolution is evolving into a new species, ie a bacteria becoming a fish etc.

What happened here, in your example, is not evolution, but a variation in a species. It's still the same species. Much like a person can be born with an unusual birthmark, they are still a person.

When I say there's no proof of evolution, and when I say when people try to present truth, it's usually something like a bird becoming a slightly bigger version of a bird, is because it's true.

I say it, because when I speak, I speak of what I know.

Evolution isn't a bacteria turning into a bird overnight. You don't understand it at all apparently.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
09-10-2017, 05:47 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:29 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Well well, the first law of thermodynamics tells us that when energy goes into a system, that the internal energy changes as per the law of conservation of energy,

And the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can be neither created or destroyed.

So you have a problem either way.

Nope. Wrong again tit-mouse. You have no evidence those laws apply to anything other than INSIDE this universe. You think those laws apply in heaven ? LMAO
Common amateur mistake.
You are SUCH a rank amateur at this.
Are you like 15 ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2017, 05:49 PM
RE: Opposed to God or the idea of God?
(09-10-2017 05:43 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 05:34 PM)Dr H Wrote:  The reality is that there is well over a century and a half of amassed evidence in support of evolution, including direct observation of evolution occurring in the laboratory.

This isn't evolution.

Yes, it is. You need an education.

Quote:Evolution is evolving into a new species, ie a bacteria becoming a fish etc.

No, a bacterium does not become a fish. Small changes to a population accumulate without limit.

Quote:What happened here, in your example, is not evolution, but a variation in a species. It's still the same species. Much like a person can be born with an unusual birthmark, they are still a person.

What prevents small changes from adding up to large change?

Quote:When I say there's no proof of evolution, and when I say when people try to present truth, it's usually something like a bird becoming a slightly bigger version of a bird, is because it's true.

Your assertions without evidence are tedious.

Quote:I say it, because when I speak, I speak of what I know.

You are ignorant. See Tiktaalik.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: