(October 18, 2013 at 8:30 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I reject atheism

You realise how stupid you sound when you say that right? You are basically saying: I reject the rejection of my claims

(October 18, 2013 at 8:01 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: It would entirely lack a context for it's existence it would mean we're an accidental byproduct.

You keep saying this like it's a rebuttal, but it really isn't: if we're an accident, so what?

Quote: Freewill, morality, good and evil would be all be fucked if that were true.

Why would that be the case? In your worldview the same basics apply: your god would be the eternal thing that lacks a context and was accidental, why does the presence of a consciousness in the mix suddenly validate free will and morality?

Quote: I don't see any good reason why that ought to be true particularly as we know our own universe is finite and had a beginning/point of creation.

Well, we know the universe in its current state had a beginning. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume that there was nothing before it, when science hasn't been able to investigate it fully.

Quote: If it was eternal in itself it could have just been eternal in itself so that suggests an eternal force, particularly when you take into account the balance of the natural order and the complex nature of life. Yes there was evolution but you can see that as a progression from simplicity to ever increasing level of sophistication resulting in humanity, or something like humanity ultimately.

Well, that's not exactly true: we see examples of regression of the loss of features just as often as we see the addition of new ones. My favorite example is whales, given that their ancestry actually lies in early ungulates, land animals that returned to the sea and developed aquatic forms like their sea based predecessors. If everything is moving toward complexity, with humanity being the top of that chain, then this alone violates your premise, but even in human life, we've lost some things along the way. We're no longer covered from head to toe in hair, for one. Our appendix no longer has a function, nor do our little toes: these are all examples of humans losing things, growing simpler as evolution does its work.

The only way you can really say there's a progression toward complexity is to ignore large swathes of what's actually happening with evolution.

Quote: You don't have to take Genesis 100% literally it only has to be true in general.

So how do you decide which parts don't have to be true? Or is it done in reverse, where the more the real world contradicts the book, the less the book has to be literally true in order to keep its credibility?

Quote:I'm not saying you can't have an eternal universe but I would object to it on good solid grounds. It isn't wishful thinking either as it makes more sense for the universe to have an eternal context and some kind of purpose in the way it was specifically formed that isn't beyond the bounds of reason at all.

Sorry, personal incredulity and what you think makes sense has no bearing on what's actually true.

(October 18, 2013 at 8:30 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: You could believe in God if you wanted but simply don't want to do it. Unless you're saying you don't have the option?

I don't have the option. Most religious ideas are so patently ridiculous, not to mention repugnant, that I couldn't believe in them if you held a gun to my head. You probably simply could not believe that an angel buried golden tablets in New York and led Joseph Smith to them, no matter what I threatened you with. You could try, but you'd fail.

The weak notions of god are easier to swallow, but they're so weak that there's no reason to consider them (God is just the love between people!).

This doesn't mean that evidence could not one day be provided that would compel me to believe- but none has ever been provided. And if it were provided, it wouldn't change me much other than getting me to believe.

I am disappoint.

I came here because I was told that the theists had cogent arguments and were worth debating.

igh:

(October 18, 2013 at 9:04 am)DLJ Wrote: I am disappoint.

I came here because I was told that the theists had cogent arguments and were worth debating.

igh:

Smart theists generally don't come on to atheist forums to debate them. They don't need to, they don't have anything to prove, and they aren't looking for argument that will lead nowhere- they recognize that there are better uses of their time than shitting on other people's carpets. The smart theists here aren't here to debate.

(October 18, 2013 at 8:30 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I reject atheism,

I reject that you reject atheism.

(October 18, 2013 at 6:54 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 4:07 pm)daandaan Wrote: who made the laws of physics for god to enable him to make laws of physics for his creations?? or did he make them himself?

God was never made or created nor does he exist in any physical form as any kind of process within time and space. What he does is created time, space, matter/energy, physical existence and all being. Without God nothing would exist as he is the reason for existence. Without God there is no reason, cause or anything to get the ball rolling to begin with.

God was never made or created nor does he exist in any physical form as any kind of process within time and space.

where does god live (exist)?? or how do u explain ur claim??

u r just desperately squirming like a fish on the riverbed...

and we for now have had it with claims about he created everything..becouse u cant even explain what a god is ,,,the explanation u ve given applies as well to any other god and fantasy figures as well ..

(October 18, 2013 at 6:54 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: God was never made or created nor does he exist in any physical form as any kind of process within time and space. What he does is created time, space, matter/energy, physical existence and all being. Without God nothing would exist as he is the reason for existence. Without God there is no reason, cause or anything to get the ball rolling to begin with.

You've got to be kidding me. When you see an exquisitely made watch do you imagine that such a thing had always been? No! It was obviously designed and assembled by a craftsman (or at least a craftsman's robot assembly line). If you agree the watch requires a watch maker, then how can you deny that god requires a god maker? Surely this god is more sublimely complex and much more powerful than the watch. Be reasonable!

(October 18, 2013 at 8:39 am)Rationalman Wrote: I reject atheism

You realise how stupid you sound when you say that right? You are basically saying: I reject the rejection of my claims

I don't we agree on what atheism is, to me it's a rival religious belief that would replace theism/Christianity.

(October 18, 2013 at 9:59 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 8:39 am)Rationalman Wrote: I reject atheism

You realise how stupid you sound when you say that right? You are basically saying: I reject the rejection of my claims

I don't we agree on what atheism is, to me it's a rival religious belief that would replace theism/Christianity.

Ah, then that's your mistake. There isn't anything religious about not adopting a belief in gods. I have plenty of beliefs as do other atheists and as you yourself do. I dare say there must be plenty of overlap in our beliefs. The one difference is I just carry on without that one belief in gods which you place so much stock in. Are any of your other beliefs religious in nature? Neither are mine. Hope that helps.