(November 2, 2014 at 5:08 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 5:04 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So you claim that something can come from nothing.

No, God created the Universe.

We don't believe you.

Is there anyone else we can talk to? Another theist perhaps who knows what he's doing?

dimaniac Wrote:God is all powerful infinite being, he didn't need anything to create the universe

(November 2, 2014 at 5:08 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 5:04 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So you claim that something can come from nothing.

No, God created the Universe.

From nothing.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:08 pm)dimaniac Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 5:04 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So you claim that something can come from nothing.

No, God created the Universe.

You're naming the agent, and not the raw material.

You're new to this thinking stuff, aren't you?

You were asked what the Universe was made from, not who made it. Answer the question.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So then neither could god. And if god didn't begin to exist, then evidently there's no requirement that the universe do so either; this whole idea that the universe "began" to exist is based on faulty knowledge of the big bang. Truthfully, our understanding of causality breaks down at that point, so for all we know there isn't a way for it to "begin".

Actually, it isn't based on faulty knowledge. Why do you think scientists are constantly coming up with all of these crazy cosmological models? Because they are trying to come up with a pre-big bang scenario, that is why. They recognize the implications of a finite universe.

Second, the reason the universe could not have existed infinitely is because of the problems with an actual infinity...and the argument does an excellent job of explaining why.

Third, causality breaks down because you will eventually get to the point where time simply doesn't exist...which is why a timeless cause is needed, and since the universe is always in a state of change, the timeless cause could not itself be within the universe.

See where I'm going, here?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, and it argues that without ever demonstrating that it is possible.

No concept of God (as identified in the argument) doesn't violate any laws of logic. It is a logical concept, therefore, it is possible. Unless you can demonstrate how the concept is incoherent, you have to admit that it is at least possible for God to exist.

Anything beyond that is just intellectual dishonesty.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not going to get into a discussion of morality, but I don't need to as my points still stand: this argument doesn't even attempt to establish that the only transcendent standard is a god, let alone the christian god. Nor does it even attempt to establish that these things are objectively wrong. It just asserts it. For an argument to be valid it needs to, you know, demonstrate the things that it's arguing for.

Where would this "thing" called morality come from in the first place? The concept of right and wrong coming from nature, huh?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Who cares? Bill Gates ain't a biologist, for one thing.

I didn't know you needed to be a biologist to understand information.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How do you quantify information? Or even define it? If you can't measure it or detect it, how do you know it's there?

Lets just go with the webster dictionary to define information.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: See, this is the thing: information doesn't exist objectively. It is an expression of a conscious mind's ability to discern patterns in an object after the fact. There is no thing called information that one can detect.

Ahhh, so where would you get this conscious mind from? See how one argument just leads to the other? All of your answers have to come from nature itself.

SO where would you get this conscious mind to "discern patterns in an object after the fact".

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Your information claim is incorrect to begin with, leaving you with yet another false dichotomy.

Actually, it isn't. This is your way of over-analyzing things to take away from the implications. DNA is a code, and any "code" consists of information, and our DNA contains information on how to make you...it is information for all of our physical characteristics....now how can you get this kind information on how to make ANYTHING from a mindless and blind process.

Codes have programmers.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So put your money where your mouth is and fucking do it already. Don't just smugly assert it like your word means shit on its own.

I will when I feel like it, how about that?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Where? In the books of the bible? The anonymously written books of the bible?

So because it is in the bible, it can't be true? Non-sequitur. Fallcious, I tell ya...fallacious

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... The ones that were all written after Jesus died, by people that never met him?

Historical evidence suggests that the Bible was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Your problem is that you just keep asserting that there's evidence without ever presenting it. It makes it look as though you have something to hide.

Small steps, not leaps and bounds

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Uh, yes... that's why I said five of the six arguments don't point to the christian god. And the sixth is entirely erroneous.

Well, only one argument for the Christian God is needed anyway.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And you don't get to grade me; you don't have nearly the education for that.

And you dont have the education to get a grade higher than a D.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Another theist perhaps who knows what he's doing?

Let me know how that works out for you.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I didn't know you needed to be a biologist to understand information.

Lets just go with the webster dictionary to define information.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Please stop. You're making my belly hurt.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The agreement of the innocent person has nothing to do with whether the only way to forgive people is to kill someone innocent.

Well, I will put it to this way Jenny: I think if there was a "better" way to do things, I think an all knowing God would have figured it out.

Cool, what a fine proof that an all knowing being doesn't exist.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Gnostic atheism is belief that there is not god. Agnostic atheism is not simply lacking a belief in god. I am a agnostic atheism, though I find the god's lack of existence by far the more probable of the two choices, It know it certain.

Semantic babble. On judgement day, God will make no distinction between atheism, agnosticm, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and any other ludacris combinations you throw at him lol.

Surely you know better than to threaten an atheist with god. It's like little boy warning his father about the monster under the bed.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Exactly, if science can prove a thing, then god. It's the argument of the gaps. Science has been filling in gaps pretty steadily.

Prove that consciousness can come from unconsciousness and life can come from nonlife...then we are smokin'.[/Quote]

Prove god exists and he created life. Lack of evidence proves nothing one way or the other. But as a method of making predictions about the real world science has a great track record and alas does not.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Citation please? Science is about evidence, inference, and demonstration. It changes with better understanding. Religion maintains the same beliefs in the face of changing evidence. Which one is more honest and more likely to reach the truth?

Citiation for what? The fact that our universe began to exist can be found in any text book on modern cosmology. It is a religiously neutral statement.

Citation for the scientists believing in a static unchanging world and for sheppards believing the world began 5000 years before their time.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But many other things once thought to be magic have. Nothing previously thought natural has since been proven to be magic.

Well, science answers your prayers by providing you answers with tough questions...and God answers my prayers. We both get what we want from our "Gods"

I don't pray to science. And I've never seen anyone really get answers to prayers at a rate better than chance.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not necessarily. People don't know everything, and despite the potent tool of science, probably never will. We couldn't do show many things just a year ago that we can now. That doesn't mean they were supernatural before.

My point is, it should be ABLE to be explained via science. The potential should always be there, right? After all, it is science, right?

Potentially yes, sometime in the future. Your point?

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Being able to imagine something has no affect on whether it's possible.

Yes it does. Can you imagine for 2+2=11? Can you imagine that? No, you can't. Because it isn't possible, thats why. [/Quote]

That's backwards honey. You just said if something is logically impossible it can't exist. That was no baring on whether something imagined does exist. Imagining a thing does not make it exist.

(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Nature does things we can't do all the time. Nuclear fusion (the sun does that), travel at the speed of light (light does that you see), planet creation, interstellar travel (comets do that), and on and on.

Notice I was specifically talking about "smarts". Nice try, though.[/Quote]

You are presuming that "smarts" are required to make life. That's a leap.

(November 2, 2014 at 3:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The Modal Ontological Argument.

[/quote]


I can just as easily post a vid that backs up my position, can't I? How about explaining to me why you think the argument isn't sound/valid?
[/Quote]

You want to discuss the Model Ontological Argument fine. Start a thread. There are various permutations of it, and I want to see yours before I refute it.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Where would this "thing" called morality come from in the first place? The concept of right and wrong coming from nature, huh?

Well, it comes from being a decent person. I don't need to be convinced at the point of an eternal death threat. Not making up your own mind about how you want people to treat you and grant them the same amount of decency amounts to being a mindless Zombie, who can only act moral, because his book tells him so.

And besides, most parts of that book are anything but moral by todays standards.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Where? In the books of the bible? The anonymously written books of the bible?

So because it is in the bible, it can't be true? Non-sequitur. Fallcious, I tell ya...fallacious

The bible is a claim, so using it to reinforce a claim held within it is circular reasoning.

I'm sorry that this hasn't been explained to you before.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Historical evidence suggests that the Bible was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples.

Stop talking shit.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Small steps, not leaps and bounds

Cop out.

If you've got any evidence we can verify to back up your claims that aren't more claims, then present it.

(November 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, only one argument for the Christian God is needed anyway.

FALSE.

Evidence is needed.

Again, I don't know what school you went to but it seems you missed the lesson where children are taught that claims need evidence to support them.

(November 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

That is basically my belief in a nut shell. Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine, Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried. I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

So, saying 'God did it,' makes it all logical, suddenly?