(June 21, 2015 at 5:26 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: Hi Crosssaves, first of all welcome to the forums. If you truly wish to discuss this, then please create a introduction for yourself and then please keep an open mind settle down in this forum for a few days at least. Your arguments have all been answered several times in the past when proposed by other theists, and thus people here can get a bit annoyed for repeating the same thing over and over.
Your first claim is that nature cannot come from nothing, and science agrees. Science says there might be something be fore our nature existed, but we don't have the means yet to know what it is.
Your second claim is that we have to be as knowledgeable as God to truly be sure of him, and I agree.
You say, "That which is unfalsifiable is itself false", and I, considering that God is unfalsifiable, agree (and I think science agrees too) .
Now, why does it have to be a 'uncreated creator' for our world to exist? Why can't our world arise from or be part of an 'untriggered process'? You would reject the second because we don't normally 'see' that happening (though in the quantum world particles do pop in and out of existence), and similarly we don't 'see' the uncreated creator in this world (not in the quantum world either), so shouldn't they both be equally valid or invalid?
Even if there is a sentience beyond our understanding, how do we know or be sure of it's characteristics if we cannot comprehend it? How can we differentiate between Yahweh and Odin? How do we know it's thoughts? How can we claim it wants to have a 'personal relationship' with anyone? Would you want to have an personal relationship with a bacteria?
Why avoid this topic and not allow me to have a discussion in this thread, but require me to make an introduction thread? Seems vain and fruitless. The discussion has commenced and people are participating.
People have repeated their patented responses, and I was happy to show their misreading and mistaken assumptions in their responses so the proof goes unchallenged. People might get annoyed that I can respond to their mistaken assumptions with the truth but that doesn't make their assumptions any less false.
Science doesn't say 'might' but absolutely something existed before nature. We know what that is--the uncreated Creator (proof given in the opening post).
You misread what I said. I did not say "we have to be as knowledgeable as God to truly be sure of him." I said you don't need to be God "all knowing" to know if God exists since obviously you are not God and that would be unfalsifiable -- unfalsifiable because you make it impossible to disprove atheism when you claim you have to be God and never will be. Your silly rule is unfalsifiable, and thus, disingenuous.
Atheists seem to think they can falsify God so the concede God is falsifiable. God is falsifiable but atheism is unfalsifiable. I would say you could falsify God if you could show something from nothing or infinite regress as true. But you fail on both fronts.
Just because you are not smart enough to know where quantum particles come from, doesn't mean you should assume they come from nothing. That's overassuming and the height of arrogance. Especially considering we have trillions of cause and effects, and no hard evidence to the contrary. An 'untriggered process' you admitted before is false of something from nothing so don't turn around and argue for something from nothing. Be "not doubletongued".
You demand to see God in this world, but that would be illogical since the uncreated Creator is outside of time and space. Space and time are used to see things in nature not out of nature.
Why assume you can't know the characteristics of God? The first characteristic which we have proven is that He is uncreated so you know at least this much already. Like I said before, don't worry about which claim on the uncreated Creator is the correct one. That would be putting the cart before the horse. You are not ready yet to have meat. Just drink some milk first.
