Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[MilesAbbott81]

So let me get this straight. He created original sin, since he - according to that warped logic - created Adam and Eve and set up his little sadistic experiment. Of course he knew the outcome beforehand because he's omniscient.

So he gets down to earth in the guise of his son, who's not really his son but himself in one of his three personas and stages his own little splatter show to free humanity from original sin he created in the first place.

So let's assume for a moment I'm buying into that absurd tale so far. To whom did he sacrifice this Jesus shell? And was he dead for three days, meaning there was no god for 72 hours? If the answer is no, as it always turns out to be, there never was a sacrifice, since nothing was lost. A sacrifice by definition demands for something precious being lost and not some cheap circus trick.

Do you know how one dies by crucifixion? It isn't from blood loss, it's from an agonizingly gradual asphyxiation. Would you like to die in such a way? Would you choose to die that way if you were God? Why?

He chose an agonizing death so that we could understand the full measure of His love. He drank from the cup of His own wrath, though He didn't deserve to; He shared in our suffering. How can that be classified as anything but a sacrifice?

And yes, God created sin, and it was His will that we should sin, so that we might learn the difference between good and evil. There is a duality to everything in His creation, and how are we to know good without first knowing evil? That is the purpose of our existence.

Could He have done it another way? Certainly, but you can rest assured that this is the best way, because God does all things perfectly.

---

MA81, if you're aware of the fact that you can't explain your god, why are you contributing to this thread? Do you really think a bunch of woo, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and other crap we've heard a million times is going to make us see it your way?

Of course not, I even said so at the beginning of my involvement in this thread.

Though you are wrong that I can't explain my God; I can and have done so perfectly in this very thread. If you're unwilling to accept the argument I've presented, then that is fine...doesn't mean you are right, nor have any of you even offered an alternative theory explaining the origin of matter. All expected, of course.

TBH I'm not even sure how we started upon the topic; I do recall initially being involved in the topic discussion, but then this entire thread is one massive mess, anyway.

[Esquilax]

*Sighs* That's the thing; I already have. I'm really not sure how else to describe my argument to you.

You've already established that god is the only thing allowed in the category "things that come from nothing"? How did you do that? If you're just referring to the naked assertions you've made thus far, then no, you have not. Just saying something is so doesn't make it true; if you've made an actual argument, with evidence, then save me having to look through nigh on forty pages of material and just give me the cliffs notes version.

I never said anything about a pre-big bang universe,

True, but since you were discussing things beyond our current model of physics, I thought I'd point out that such a state is equally true of the universe prior to the big bang. It's one of those things that makes it very clear that when you describe god as being the only thing in the category of things outside of our physics models, you haven't done much reading on our current ideas in science.

I simply said that God could've created the universe (or perhaps its expansion and formation would be more accurate) using the big bang. Whatever the current model, no model explains the origin of the matter, so going into details is pointless.

If you recognize that no model founded by the people actually testing the beginnings of the universe gives us an explanation of its origins, why on earth do you feel okay about asserting god as that explanation without even attempting to test it?

Actually, no, I'd never heard the special pleading argument before, but I inferred the meaning from context. I looked it up just now to make sure, and I inferred correctly. God justifies the exception by His definition as omnipotent.

Two problems: now you have two claims to justify before you can functionally use the exception in an argument, the first being that god exists at all, and the second being that he's omnipotent. Hell, you haven't even tried to address whether omnipotence is even possible, and there's good argument to demonstrate that it isn't. Naked assertions aren't good justification for exceptions from rules; you can make up any sort of exception, if you're content not to restrict yourself to things that you can demonstrate as real. It's not exactly a great feat, to fantasize your way out of a logical fallacy.

As I've said multiple times now and in many ways, God is necessarily above all rules and limitations, if He created our existence. I see no point in repeating myself any further, so this will be the last time I mention it.

It's good that you'll stop repeating it, because it's wrong: one does not necessarily have to be above all rules and limitations to have created the universe. In fact, I can come up with plenty of hypotheticals other than a god for that exact purpose. You're mistaking the thing you want to be true, for the only thing that could be true.

Again, already answered multiple times in multiple ways. There is only so much I can do here.

Yeah, see, I'm not gonna go back over so many pages for you; the way you've argued so far casts incredible doubt on the claim that you've answered anything in a satisfactory manner, despite your thoughts to the contrary.

Unless physics has all of a sudden added the spontaneous creation of matter to its lexicon, I certainly do not.

So, somebody's never heard of virtual particles, or of our current thinking regarding the universe pre-expansion, then. You say the laws of physics do this and that, but you also demonstrate that you haven't read any of the relevant material before you speak.

So you're wrong from the beginning, but purely on the matter of logic, your argument here doesn't hold up; even if the physics community does not deal with the spontaneous creation of matter, it doesn't entail that they deal with the reverse either. To start with, it's a false dichotomy to assert there are only two options without justification. You also ignore the very obvious possibility that they could just abstain from speaking on the issue at all until better information presents itself.

My citation is logic...can I do nothing but repeat myself here? Apparently not.

Your logic is faulty, and your grasp on it tenuous, which is why I ask for something a little more solid. Like evidence.

Well, at least it's a new question. The answer is, how the hell should I know? You're asking me to explain the unexplainable. If I knew how to create something from nothing, I'd be a god myself.

You can know how something occurred without being able to do it yourself. But if you don't know the mechanism, or even how to find out or test it, you don't have an explanation in any real sense.

Why must you have answers to everything? Why must everything be explained, categorized, analyzed and interpreted?

If you're asserting something about reality, if you're coming here into our discussion forum to talk about these issues, then you'd better have some details. To be clear, you are claiming to have answers, I'm just asking that you explain them; it's not my problem that you have such a poor grasp on the things you believe.

But the reverse of your questions is also pertinent: why are you so content with ignorance? Why is knowledge and the pursuit of it something you're trying to denigrate and paint as an absurd desire?

Why do you want so badly for there not to be a God? That is the most important question.

We haven't discussed what I want at all, and in fact, what I want is irrelevant to what's true. I don't desire that you be wrong, I just point out that, factually and logically, you are wrong. I don't have to want the reverse, or even believe the reverse, to point that out.

But thank you for assuming my motives without asking me, that level of rudeness and presumptuousness tells me a lot about your position. You presume a personal motive from someone you've never met before you'd even entertain the possibility that he might see a weakness in your factual case, or perhaps it's comforting for you to think that my position is based on something as base as desire, rather than on evidence. I don't care which, the point is this: you're not going to denigrate my position with assumptions like that, without me correcting you on that.

Your most important question is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and why I'm taking part in it. Try again.

[JesusHChrist]

It's not a sacrifice when you're a god damn god who with a nose twitch can make it all better. Absolutely nothing changed from your god's perspective. Not one little bit. Jeez is back in heaven, doing what ever turns him on.

In any case it's all moot, like talking about darth Vader, until you can demonstrate your god is anything more than a fairy tale written by primitives.

[rexbeccarox]

MA81, if you're aware of the fact that you can't explain your god, why are you contributing to this thread? Do you really think a bunch of woo, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and other crap we've heard a million times is going to make us see it your way?

Of course not, I even said so at the beginning of my involvement in this thread.

Though you are wrong that I can't explain my God; I can and have done so perfectly in this very thread. If you're unwilling to accept the argument I've presented, then that is fine...doesn't mean you are right, nor have any of you even offered an alternative theory explaining the origin of matter. All expected, of course.

So... you didn't say this?

Explanations require a "how?" answer. How did god create the universe? If you can't say that, you don't have an explanation when you say god; it's roughly akin to being asked how hot dogs are made, and answering with "meat." Even if you're correct, you've done nothing to advance the knowledge that the questioner actually wanted when they asked you.

Well, at least it's a new question. The answer is, how the hell should I know? You're asking me to explain the unexplainable. If I knew how to create something from nothing, I'd be a god myself.

Why must you have answers to everything? Why must everything be explained, categorized, analyzed and interpreted?

Why do you want so badly for there not to be a God? That is the most important question.

Also, nice strawman there. Who said they want for there not to be a god?

[MilesAbbott81]

*Sighs* That's the thing; I already have. I'm really not sure how else to describe my argument to you.

You've already established that god is the only thing allowed in the category "things that come from nothing"? How did you do that? If you're just referring to the naked assertions you've made thus far, then no, you have not. Just saying something is so doesn't make it true; if you've made an actual argument, with evidence, then save me having to look through nigh on forty pages of material and just give me the cliffs notes version.

Okay, I'll bite.

First, I never said God is in the category of "things that come from nothing." This is what you said:

You do believe there exists a set of things that don't need to come from anything else, you just don't want anyone else to be able to use that category because it's inconvenient to your position.

I never said a set of things, I said one being, that is, God. Neither did I say He came from anything else - you are putting words in my mouth. What I DID say is that God is the only possible thing that could exist in things that don't need to come from anything else, due to His very nature as God. As God, He is not bound by the rules of His creation, that is, the universe and all that is in it, because it stands to reason that if God created the universe, then He was outside of it to begin with. Therefore, how could He be subject to its laws?

I never said anything about a pre-big bang universe,

True, but since you were discussing things beyond our current model of physics, I thought I'd point out that such a state is equally true of the universe prior to the big bang. It's one of those things that makes it very clear that when you describe god as being the only thing in the category of things outside of our physics models, you haven't done much reading on our current ideas in science.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to tell me that the law of the conservation of energy has been disproved? Is that not the essence of my argument? I am not referring to fringe theories or physics models that theorize fantastical scenarios that try to explain something coming from nothing.

Tell me, do you truly think it is possible that something can come from nothing? If not, then what exactly is your argument, or are you simply trying to discredit me on the basis that I'm not as scientifically savvy as you or your cohorts on this forum? That, I assure you, is certainly the case, and I freely admit it.

I simply said that God could've created the universe (or perhaps its expansion and formation would be more accurate) using the big bang. Whatever the current model, no model explains the origin of the matter, so going into details is pointless.

If you recognize that no model founded by the people actually testing the beginnings of the universe gives us an explanation of its origins, why on earth do you feel okay about asserting god as that explanation without even attempting to test it?

Because, quite obviously, there is no way to conduct a test that will prove or disprove the existence of God (unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking here), and because I believe the existence of God to be self-evident, and completely logical to the point where that logic should be accepted as evidence. No one has offered a reasonable explanation to the contrary, except to say that it hasn't been proven in a lab or something, which is a foolish expectation given the nature of the question and the obvious truths of God's existence. You propose to judge/measure God by the same standards you might judge/measure a hypothesis concerning the malleability of iron. It makes no sense to do so.

Actually, no, I'd never heard the special pleading argument before, but I inferred the meaning from context. I looked it up just now to make sure, and I inferred correctly. God justifies the exception by His definition as omnipotent.

Two problems: now you have two claims to justify before you can functionally use the exception in an argument, the first being that god exists at all, and the second being that he's omnipotent. Hell, you haven't even tried to address whether omnipotence is even possible, and there's good argument to demonstrate that it isn't. Naked assertions aren't good justification for exceptions from rules; you can make up any sort of exception, if you're content not to restrict yourself to things that you can demonstrate as real. It's not exactly a great feat, to fantasize your way out of a logical fallacy.

So you say (that I must justify two separate claims). I say I do not, because they are completely related and, in fact, inseparable. Who thinks God isn't omnipotent? I've never even heard someone try to argue that He isn't. They might question His existence, but I've never heard anyone try saying that if He does exist, He isn't omnipotent. Just take a look at the universe...if God created it, wouldn't you have to lean towards Him probably being omnipotent? If He can create something from nothing, what the hell kinds of limits would He have?

What you are saying is such an odd argument that I'm not even sure how to properly respond, and TBH it's quite the straw man and ignores the answer I initially gave. Supposing God is omnipotent, or even that He merely created existence, then He should be the exception to the special pleading rule.

As I've said multiple times now and in many ways, God is necessarily above all rules and limitations, if He created our existence. I see no point in repeating myself any further, so this will be the last time I mention it.

It's good that you'll stop repeating it, because it's wrong: one does not necessarily have to be above all rules and limitations to have created the universe. In fact, I can come up with plenty of hypotheticals other than a god for that exact purpose. You're mistaking the thing you want to be true, for the only thing that could be true.

Please, let me hear some. "You're wrong" isn't good enough.

Again, already answered multiple times in multiple ways. There is only so much I can do here.

Yeah, see, I'm not gonna go back over so many pages for you; the way you've argued so far casts incredible doubt on the claim that you've answered anything in a satisfactory manner, despite your thoughts to the contrary.

This is essentially related to what I've written above. I've provided more substance now, though in the end I am still repeating myself. Your problem is that you cast aspersions on my argument yet you don't actually give me any substantive arguments yourself. You say I lack substance, yet where is yours? Please note as well that what I'm saying is that my argument IS the substance.

Unless physics has all of a sudden added the spontaneous creation of matter to its lexicon, I certainly do not.

So, somebody's never heard of virtual particles, or of our current thinking regarding the universe pre-expansion, then. You say the laws of physics do this and that, but you also demonstrate that you haven't read any of the relevant material before you speak.[/quote]

I've read plenty of insane theories that are obviously fringe and not at all accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. I may have forgotten them all, but why should I bother recalling nonsense? Something can't from nothing. Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

So you're wrong from the beginning, but purely on the matter of logic, your argument here doesn't hold up; even if the physics community does not deal with the spontaneous creation of matter, it doesn't entail that they deal with the reverse either. To start with, it's a false dichotomy to assert there are only two options without justification. You also ignore the very obvious possibility that they could just abstain from speaking on the issue at all until better information presents itself.

What exactly is the reverse of the spontaneous creation of matter? The spontaneous destruction? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I do understand that you just said it's possible [the scientific community] are waiting for more evidence before explaining the origin of matter. They would have to, since there is an extraordinary lack thereof. How can anyone ever explain something coming from nothing? I'd love to hear anything that even begins to resemble a sensible argument!

My citation is logic...can I do nothing but repeat myself here? Apparently not.

Your logic is faulty, and your grasp on it tenuous, which is why I ask for something a little more solid. Like evidence. [/quote]

You have failed to even put a dent in my logic, sir. Evidence, evidence! you all cry. Give me reason and a sensible hypothesis, and I will give you evidence. How 'bout that? You want to apply the scientific method, give me a feasible theory that is testable. But you can't give me reason OR a sensible hypothesis, so you will never receive evidence. (Not that I could actually provide it, at least beyond the logic I credit as evidence. I am simply making a point)

Well, at least it's a new question. The answer is, how the hell should I know? You're asking me to explain the unexplainable. If I knew how to create something from nothing, I'd be a god myself.

You can know how something occurred without being able to do it yourself. But if you don't know the mechanism, or even how to find out or test it, you don't have an explanation in any real sense.

See above. There is no hypothesis for the origin of matter that you or anyone will ever accept as plausible because nothing makes sense except God. God makes perfect sense, and is as real an explanation to anyone who isn't deliberately shutting their ears to reason.

Why must you have answers to everything? Why must everything be explained, categorized, analyzed and interpreted?

If you're asserting something about reality, if you're coming here into our discussion forum to talk about these issues, then you'd better have some details. To be clear, you are claiming to have answers, I'm just asking that you explain them; it's not my problem that you have such a poor grasp on the things you believe.

But the reverse of your questions is also pertinent: why are you so content with ignorance? Why is knowledge and the pursuit of it something you're trying to denigrate and paint as an absurd desire?

Answering this in conjunction with the below question/statement.

Why do you want so badly for there not to be a God? That is the most important question.

We haven't discussed what I want at all, and in fact, what I want is irrelevant to what's true. I don't desire that you be wrong, I just point out that, factually and logically, you are wrong. I don't have to want the reverse, or even believe the reverse, to point that out.

But thank you for assuming my motives without asking me, that level of rudeness and presumptuousness tells me a lot about your position. You presume a personal motive from someone you've never met before you'd even entertain the possibility that he might see a weakness in your factual case, or perhaps it's comforting for you to think that my position is based on something as base as desire, rather than on evidence. I don't care which, the point is this: you're not going to denigrate my position with assumptions like that, without me correcting you on that.

Your most important question is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and why I'm taking part in it. Try again.

Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

A) Insincere in their unbelief
B) In denial
C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite
or D) Demon-possessed

To elaborate...
A) Many atheists, I believe, are simply afraid of what they don't know or understand. Everyone is afraid of death, and the vast majority of religious folks seem fake or worship a monstrous God. Atheism is a warm blanket, a kind of shelter from fear.
B) All people love their sins, and all people find it preferable to excuse their sins rather than face up to them. Thus, pretending there is no God becomes a viable alternative, even if the arguments against His existence are fallacious/non-sensical.
C) When confronted with the kind of logic I've presented in this thread, some will cling to false notions because of pride, preferring to save face instead of admitting they were wrong. It is usually the last thing to fall, pride.
D) I won't bother explaining this one, since I am sure to be ridiculed for it regardless.

[Whateverist]

You've already established that god is the only thing allowed in the category "things that come from nothing"? How did you do that? If you're just referring to the naked assertions you've made thus far, then no, you have not. Just saying something is so doesn't make it true; if you've made an actual argument, with evidence, then save me having to look through nigh on forty pages of material and just give me the cliffs notes version.

Okay, I'll bite.

First, I never said God is in the category of "things that come from nothing." This is what you said:

You do believe there exists a set of things that don't need to come from anything else, you just don't want anyone else to be able to use that category because it's inconvenient to your position.

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle .. come in kettle.

My own position is that there either are or are not 'things' which have always existed but neither I nor you will ever know that. But please, enjoy your god belief if it makes you happy. I'll just go on enjoying the mystery and settle for understanding that which is within my grasp to know.

[The Reality Salesman01]

due to His very nature as God. As God, He is not bound by the rules of His creation,

Ok, if we were playing Chess, this is when I say "check". You just said "God is not bound by the rules of his creation". In short, nature and all things are limited, whereas God is not. That which is impossible for nature is not for God. Are you sure this is the move you want to make here?

[Esquilax]

Okay, I'll bite.

First, I never said God is in the category of "things that come from nothing." This is what you said:

To be clear, before we continue: the content of the category doesn't matter, nor whether there is one thing or multiple things contained within it. What matters is the existence of the category, your belief that it exists, and what that implies for the rest of your argument. You can stop splitting hairs about what I call it, or whether I characterize it as a category capable of containing one thing or many, as those are profoundly irrelevant points.

I never said a set of things, I said one being, that is, God.

Yes, that is your assertion. But I'm not required to be bound to your assertion merely because you present it; you're going to have to do more than shout "god's the only thing that can be this other thing!" if you want me to play along. Until then, it's a category like any other, capable of containing multiple things.

Neither did I say He came from anything else - you are putting words in my mouth.

You need to read closer: I said your claim is that god is in a category of things that don't come from other things.

What I DID say is that God is the only possible thing that could exist in things that don't need to come from anything else, due to His very nature as God.

Which is the thing you need to demonstrate, and haven't yet. You've got a long road to hoe before we get to the point where any of us need to take that claim seriously. Right now you're effectively arguing the minutia of fan fiction as though it were real; you're missing step one, of talking about concepts in reality.

As God, He is not bound by the rules of His creation, that is, the universe and all that is in it, because it stands to reason that if God created the universe, then He was outside of it to begin with. Therefore, how could He be subject to its laws?

I'm not particularly interested in discussing the abilities of a being you've yet to demonstrate exists; I'm not a fan of the franchise, see. What I care about is the premise grounding all these assertions that you don't seem to want to discuss, namely that the set of things that don't need to come from anything contains exactly one thing. How did you determine that?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you trying to tell me that the law of the conservation of energy has been disproved? Is that not the essence of my argument? I am not referring to fringe theories or physics models that theorize fantastical scenarios that try to explain something coming from nothing.

Here's what I'm saying: our current models of physics stop at the point of the big bang. If you actually go out and read the modern scientific discussions of this topic, the commonality is that at the point that universal expansion stops, so too does out ability to predict how physics works. Essentially, modern physicists generally think that beyond that point we'd need an entirely new vocabulary to describe what goes on. Conservation of energy, and any other laws of physics, may not apply, which is something you already believe, so don't scoff.

More broadly, I'm telling you that physics are a condition of the universe, and when we're discussing how the universe began... we are no longer in the place where physics is.

Tell me, do you truly think it is possible that something can come from nothing?

Why not? You do.

If not, then what exactly is your argument, or are you simply trying to discredit me on the basis that I'm not as scientifically savvy as you or your cohorts on this forum? That, I assure you, is certainly the case, and I freely admit it.

My position is that I don't know. But that doesn't blind me to bad argumentation when I see it.

Because, quite obviously, there is no way to conduct a test that will prove or disprove the existence of God (unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking here), and because I believe the existence of God to be self-evident, and completely logical to the point where that logic should be accepted as evidence.

Two things: One, "it's just self evident" is a cheat, a demand that everyone take you seriously without having to provide an argument. Not gonna work.

Secondly, for logic to be valid it must be based on observations, and observations can be tested for consistency and accuracy. If you say we can't devise a test, you don't have a valid logical syllogism, and if we can devise a test, then god keeps failing it and you don't have a valid logical syllogism. Pick one.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation to the contrary, except to say that it hasn't been proven in a lab or something, which is a foolish expectation given the nature of the question and the obvious truths of God's existence.

Do you always believe in things until they've been proven false? Or is it just things you want to believe, that get the privilege of seeing you shift the burden of proof?

You propose to judge/measure God by the same standards you might judge/measure a hypothesis concerning the malleability of iron. It makes no sense to do so.

You can't just define your god outside the bounds of testing, while simultaneously defining him into existence. It can be one or the other, but not both; if it exists in any way that affects the real world, it can be tested.

So you say (that I must justify two separate claims). I say I do not, because they are completely related and, in fact, inseparable. Who thinks God isn't omnipotent? I've never even heard someone try to argue that He isn't.

Never heard of the Greek gods, then? Or did you just think yours was the only one?

Besides, it doesn't matter how often the two claims are paired together, they are still two claims.

They might question His existence, but I've never heard anyone try saying that if He does exist, He isn't omnipotent. Just take a look at the universe...if God created it, wouldn't you have to lean towards Him probably being omnipotent? If He can create something from nothing, what the hell kinds of limits would He have?

Any limits I can imagine. Power is not some tower, where each trait of it is predicated on all the others being present. Creation ex nihilo is a single ability, it doesn't entail, merely by its presence, that the being who can do it can also, as a random example, play a bass guitar. Why would you think it would?

What you are saying is such an odd argument that I'm not even sure how to properly respond, and TBH it's quite the straw man and ignores the answer I initially gave.

The problem is that you're assuming a lot of things about god to be true, without even attempting to think about how someone who doesn't do that would see the issue. Like I said, Greek gods: step outside of what you already believe, stop taking it for granted, and look at it step by step. A god exists? Well, okay, but I know of god claims that don't entail omniscience, therefore they don't automatically entail that claim, therefore saying "he's god!" doesn't mean I should leap immediately to "he's omniscient!"

You call it a straw man but the truth is I'm making less assumptions about the god you believe in than you do.

Supposing God is omnipotent, or even that He merely created existence, then He should be the exception to the special pleading rule.

You still have to go from "supposing" to "is."

Please, let me hear some. "You're wrong" isn't good enough.

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't violate causality. His powers involve creating universes, but don't include time travel.

God exists, he created the universe, but he can't create complex life from scratch. Never got the hang of nervous systems, so he was forced to arrange for abiogenesis and evolution to happen.

God exists, he created the universe, but he couldn't create it from nothing. He had to lop off an arm and use that as raw materials.

I'm just making these up off the top of my head, here. None of them are less evidenced than your claim, either.

This is essentially related to what I've written above. I've provided more substance now, though in the end I am still repeating myself. Your problem is that you cast aspersions on my argument yet you don't actually give me any substantive arguments yourself. You say I lack substance, yet where is yours? Please note as well that what I'm saying is that my argument IS the substance.

You're not making an argument, is the problem. You're making a heap of assertions without justification. I can do that too, but both of us shouting "because I said so," isn't much of an argument. Where's your actual evidence? And don't just say "it's logical!" because logic, as I've said, is based on observations, or else it's not necessarily true. "All presidents are dogs, Bush was a president, therefore Bush is a dog," is a logically valid statement. It just isn't true, because one of the premises is wrong.

I've read plenty of insane theories that are obviously fringe and not at all accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

So, if you disagree with it, it's a fringe theory?

I may have forgotten them all, but why should I bother recalling nonsense? Something can't from nothing.

Yes it can. Oh, what's that, you're not going to accept that as true just because I said it? Then why are you expecting us to do so?

Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

Argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

What exactly is the reverse of the spontaneous creation of matter? The spontaneous destruction? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You're asserting that the two options are spontaneous creation from nothing, and creation from something. There is at least one more option, that I described in my post.

I do understand that you just said it's possible [the scientific community] are waiting for more evidence before explaining the origin of matter. They would have to, since there is an extraordinary lack thereof. How can anyone ever explain something coming from nothing? I'd love to hear anything that even begins to resemble a sensible argument!

So why privilege god?

You have failed to even put a dent in my logic, sir. Evidence, evidence! you all cry. Give me reason and a sensible hypothesis, and I will give you evidence. How 'bout that? You want to apply the scientific method, give me a feasible theory that is testable.

We don't need a competing theory in order to show that yours isn't good. If you claim that space cats pooped out the universe, I don't need an alternative to space cats in order to say that's stupid.

But you can't give me reason OR a sensible hypothesis, so you will never receive evidence. (Not that I could actually provide it, at least beyond the logic I credit as evidence. I am simply making a point)

So you're being deliberately evasive, or grandstanding. Neither bodes well, and if you want to continue not having a discussion, I'd point you to look at the rules. Specifically, the early ones.

See above. There is no hypothesis for the origin of matter that you or anyone will ever accept as plausible because nothing makes sense except God. God makes perfect sense, and is as real an explanation to anyone who isn't deliberately shutting their ears to reason.

That's right, keep shifting the burden of proof. That'll work.

Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

Before we continue, how can you possibly know any of the options below? Can you read minds? Or does it just make you feel more comfortable?

A) Insincere in their unbelief

Ah, the old "you secretly believe in god!" bit. Well, you secretly believe in Vishnu.

Oh, what's that? I don't get to dictate that to you, and I have no way of knowing that? Hmm...

B) In denial

You're in denial about the existence of Vishnu. It's self evident.

C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite

You're just angry at Vishnu.

or D) Demon-possessed

Or maybe you're just crazy.

See, none of what I just said is any less evidenced than your initial assertions. Why would you reject what I say, while accepting what you say, when both are identically justified?

To elaborate...
A) Many atheists, I believe, are simply afraid of what they don't know or understand. Everyone is afraid of death, and the vast majority of religious folks seem fake or worship a monstrous God. Atheism is a warm blanket, a kind of shelter from fear.

I don't care what you believe, I care what you can demonstrate. Reality is reality, regardless of what we want to be true. Where's the evidence?

B) All people love their sins, and all people find it preferable to excuse their sins rather than face up to them. Thus, pretending there is no God becomes a viable alternative, even if the arguments against His existence are fallacious/non-sensical.

Do you understand at all how profoundly disrespectful you're being, when you see fit to dictate to other people what they think? Where does that get us, in conversation?

C) When confronted with the kind of logic I've presented in this thread, some will cling to false notions because of pride, preferring to save face instead of admitting they were wrong. It is usually the last thing to fall, pride.

Ah, so we move on from presumptuousness to outright arrogance, because the only way someone could disagree with you is because of emotional reasons, right? Nothing to do with the complete lack of justification you present, they're just too prideful to admit the obvious truth of your fiat assertions.

Well, space cats pooped out the universe. Oh, what's that? Are you too prideful to accept that self evident logical truth?

D) I won't bother explaining this one, since I am sure to be ridiculed for it regardless.

How about you demonstrate it, instead of explaining it?

There, no ridicule, just a request for more. Doesn't it bother you, that what I'm asking for is more information about what you're saying, and instead of providing it, you assign nefarious motivations to me? You are literally being asked for more of the things you're saying, and somehow you're taking this as me attempting to flee from what you're saying?

What's up with that?

[abaris]

Do you know how one dies by crucifixion? It isn't from blood loss, it's from an agonizingly gradual asphyxiation. Would you like to die in such a way? Would you choose to die that way if you were God? Why?

Irrelevant how he died, since he didn't die at all. So far you artfully dodged that question: Was there no god for 72 hours?

[robvalue]

So what did I miss?

Who's winning? Should I be worried?