An unorthodox belief in God.

[SteelCurtain]

And which scriptures would those be, Mickiel?

You see, you are making a lot of bald assertions here. When you make a claim, how about providing some supporting evidence for that claim? That's sort of the way rational discussions work. Any time you say things like "That's one more for god" without backing anything up, you are simply making yourself to be a fool.

[Chas]

There was, and is, no need for a tailor. Evolution by natural selection explains it.

What selected evolution and natural selection?

Physics and chemistry.

[mickiel]

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

Why is OK for your god to have always existed and not for the universe (in some form) to have always existed?

Yet another fallacy -- special pleading. Look it up.

Just saying it, is a bare assertion. Meaningless.

All of the reasons you've given for a god existing have names and have been debunked. At the least, if you are going to make these arguments you ought to understand the opposing side. Correct? Otherwise you look quite foolish.

No god argument to date holds up to scrutiny. They are all poor.

I was foolish before I came here, I'll still be when I leave. You speak of me giving " Reasons", reason itself is another proof of god. It is unreasaonable to give the creation of reason over to things which could not reason.

[Simon Moon]

I have read scriptures that reveal god himself saying that he created parts of himself.

Why do you believe scriptures are reliable concerning any supernatural god claim?

---

reason itself is another proof of god. It is unreasaonable to give the creation of reason over to things which could not reason.

Circular logic.

First you have to demonstrate that this god exists.

[Anomalocaris]

I disagree, and I do not view god as " omni" anything. To claim a designer has no need for ingredients, is non sensical to me. god is a creator, he create things and repeatedly uses those things in other creating.

"To you"? Who the fuck are you?

You see, You are of no importance whatsoever, even less so your perception. So present evidence for your conjecture, and propose a practicable way by which your conjecture can be verified or refuted, that way it shows at least there is some evidence you have thought about how to eliminate self dilusion and wishthinking from your perceptions.

Do this and what you say may be worth a glance or two. Keep saying what things seem to you, and exhibit no evidence you've done anything to separate mental masturbation from honest proposal, you can go home right now and now waste any more of anyone else's time.

[JesusHChrist]

I was foolish before I came here, I'll still be when I leave.

No argument there.

You speak of me giving " Reasons", reason itself is another proof of god. It is unreasaonable to give the creation of reason over to things which could not reason.

Another argument from ignorance. Jesus dude.

"I can't imagine how the ability to think/reason could have evolved naturally, ergo JESUS!" Dogs reason. Cats definitely reason. Crows reason. Did god do all that too?

If you learn nothing in your (no doubt short) time here, learn why arguments from ignorance are very naughty indeed.

Fuck!

[Chas]

Don't try and use reason in here mickie. these guys are right and you are wrong. You mite as well go to another fundie religious site, like a muslim one.

I been wrong before, and those places you listed keep putting me out.

Not many places left to go that are not intimidated.

Intimidated? That's very amusing.

What caused god?

He caused parts of himself, that much I know; he created parts of himself, but outside of that little information, I just don't know.

And guess what? You don't know any of that. It's all make believe.

---

I was foolish before I came here, I'll still be when I leave. You speak of me giving " Reasons", reason itself is another proof of god. It is unreasaonable to give the creation of reason over to things which could not reason.

No, it is not unreasonable. Order and complexity arise spontaneously all the time. Is a crystal not orderly?

And properties arise out of apparently nothing, too.
The properties of table salt, NaCl, are unpredictable from the properties of sodium and chlorine, yet there they are; where did they come from?

[mickiel]

And which scriptures would those be, Mickiel?

You see, you are making a lot of bald assertions here. When you make a claim, how about providing some supporting evidence for that claim? That's sort of the way rational discussions work. Any time you say things like "That's one more for god" without backing anything up, you are simply making yourself to be a fool.

There are many scriptures, but I did not intend on using the bible; why do that here? Anyway one is in psalms 104:1-2 it says god clothed himself with honour and majesty, and gave himself light, or covered himself; which means he created those parts of himself. If he already had it before, what need would he have to give it to himself again? So this scripture, and others like it reveal that god actually created parts of himself.

And I am giving the evidence that I have as I go; that's all I can do. If others don't view it as evidence, what can I do?

---

What selected evolution and natural selection?

Physics and chemistry.

What selected physics and chemistry? To avoid infinite regression I say God began it all.

---

I have read scriptures that reveal god himself saying that he created parts of himself.

Why do you believe scriptures are reliable concerning any supernatural god claim?

---

Because the bible is a proven historical book, and biblical archaeology is yet another proof of god.

---

[quote='mickiel' pid='682722' dateline='1402074429']

I disagree, and I do not view god as " omni" anything. To claim a designer has no need for ingredients, is non sensical to me. god is a creator, he create things and repeatedly uses those things in other creating.

"To you"? Who the fuck are you?

You see, You are of no importance whatsoever, even less so your perception. So present evidence for your conjecture, and propose a practicable way by which your conjecture can be verified or refuted, that way it shows at least there is some evidence you have thought about how to eliminate self dilusion and wishthinking from your perceptions.

Do this and what you say may be worth a glance or two. Keep saying what things seem to you, and exhibit no evidence you've done anything to separate mental masturbation from honest proposal, you can go home right now and now waste any more of anyone else's time.

Why are you wasting your time reading what I have to say if I am of no importance?

[Esquilax]

And I am giving the evidence that I have as I go; that's all I can do. If others don't view it as evidence, what can I do?

Serious question, do you know what evidence is? Because evidence isn't opinions: evidence isn't you going around looking at things and just asserting, "that's evidence of god! And that's evidence of god! And that's super evidence of god!"

Assertions are cheap. Demonstrations, less so.

Because the bible is a proven historical book, and biblical archaeology is yet another proof of god.

Not all the way through. There are plenty of mistakes in the bible, to say nothing of the patently absurd old testament stuff, that would lead one to be skeptical of it all.

Besides, here I thought you weren't a christian. So far, all of your arguments land squarely into christian fallacy territory.

[SteelCurtain]

There are many scriptures, but I did not intend on using the bible; why do that here? Anyway one is in psalms 104:1-2 it says god clothed himself with honour and majesty, and gave himself light, or covered himself; which means he created those parts of himself. If he already had it before, what need would he have to give it to himself again? So this scripture, and others like it reveal that god actually created parts of himself.

And I am giving the evidence that I have as I go; that's all I can do. If others don't view it as evidence, what can I do?

Wait, if you didn't intend on using the Bible, and you have many scriptures to pull from, why was the first example out of your bag a Bible verse? You say you're not Christian, but all signs point to it. How about another 'scripture' verse that's non-Biblical that would point to '[G]god' creating parts of himself? Or how about explaining how this god creating parts of himself is a better explanation with better evidence than a universe always existing? I'll be the first to tell you that I have no idea how the universe came to be or if it was always there. I am happy to not have all the answers right now. You are claiming to know the answers despite a profound lack of evidence.

See, here's why Bible verses don't hold much weight as evidence. A thing cannot be both the claim or the source of knowledge about an event and the evidence. The Bible claims that God created the universe, fine, that's the claim, that is how that idea originated. Now you have to provide some extra-Biblical evidence that the source is true. You have been woefully inadequate in that department. As has every other theist that walks in here thinking that his ideas are original or something that atheists have overlooked in our quest for knowledge and truth.

The difference (so far as I can tell from your posts) between you and I is that I am open to the evidence. I have no preconceived notion about what is true. I have no stake in a god[s] existence or lack thereof. All I seek is the knowledge that gets me as close as possible to a worldview that reflects reality. Now I will not excuse myself from any bias, I would be a moron to think that I have no bias. Only I try to reconcile that bias anytime I evaluate information. I don't use the bias to discard information. Try it on for size. Evaluate information based on the value of the information, not whether it fits your worldview or not. You'll find that you're being misled quite a bit, and by people that know what they're doing.