Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[robvalue]

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

It seems to, but if true, then the laws of conservation must be revised and rewritten.

I'm really no expert so I only have a superficial understanding. I assumed each creation/destruction event would maintain net energy somehow. Someone who knows more than me about this (anyone) should best clarify

[Esquilax]

Where did you demonstrate that only actual things can be the cause of change? Where did you even begin to demonstrate that?

It's an observation. Empirical evidence. You always want to see evidence, right? Well there it is staring you in the face. Have you ever observed something being caused by something that doesn't exist? Does that even make sense to you that that could happen?

No, no, no. That's not how evidence works. What the evidence shows you is that actual things can be the causes of things, there's nothing in that observation that shows that actual things are the only cause of things, which is the assertion you actually made.

And toward the end there, you're back mired in the argument from incredulity again. You might want to do something about that.

[madog]

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

I never heard of anyone getting bit by a potential dog. And I doubt you have. Only actual dogs can bite people.

I have heard of things being created by a potential god .... Only actual gods can create people ... but you don't believe in an actual god but a supernatural god

[robvalue]

Yeah, I've been through this all before with Chad. I tried every way I could think of to explain it but we couldn't reach an understanding.

I've only seen black dogs =/=> All dogs are black

[Esquilax]

Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics indicate things change all the time without an efficient cause?

I never heard of anyone getting bit by a potential dog. And I doubt you have. Only actual dogs can bite people.

Argument from incredulity.

[madog]

Yeah, I've been through this all before with Chad. I tried every way I could think of to explain it but we couldn't reach an understanding.

I've only seen black dogs =/=> All dogs are black

Unfortunately its a dead end "Christians" want to explain the supernatural, the supernatural .... if it could be explained it wouldn't be supernatural.

Right thinking people realize that trying to explain the supernatural (fairy stories) through the natural world (human writing, thought) is an oxymoron, but they still use ancient texts that do just that.

Somehow because its old gives it some power, just like their fictional god.

[Simon Moon]

...bad philosophical arguments, etc....

If they are so bad then why haven't you attempted to demonstrate their flaws. Some atheists love to say that all the proofs of god have been dismissed. Maybe. There are actually some fairly good objection that I take seriously. But I would bet you don't even know what those objections are.

I have. I am pretty familiar with all the objections, and I think they are stronger than the arguments they refute.

Interesting to note, that the majority of professional philosophers are atheists, 72.8%. Of the remainder, 15% are theists. 

Do you think those 72.8% understand the arguments and objections?

[madog]

 Some atheists love to say that all the proofs of god have been dismissed.  

I don't need to say god is disproved as you Christians believing in a supernatural god are doing a better job .... being supernatural means it can't be proved or disproved .... if you said unnatural maybe "Christians could offer evidence ... although after 2000 years I won't hold my breath

[robvalue]

Theists of all religions use the same (flawed) arguments to produce a deistic God, then insert their own personal favourite hoping we won't notice.

We notice. The deistic God is of no consequence, and could be as simple as a computer programmer.

You can have a deistic "God" (an intelligent creator) for all I care. You can't possibly correlate it with a story book. You can't know anything about it, even after assuming its existence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's an observation. Empirical evidence. You always want to see evidence, right? Well there it is staring you in the face. Have you ever observed something being caused by something that doesn't exist? Does that even make sense to you that that could happen?

No, no, no. That's not how evidence works. What the evidence shows you is that actual things can be the causes of things, there's nothing in that observation that shows that actual things are the only cause of things, which is the assertion you actually made.

And toward the end there, you're back mired in the argument from incredulity again. You might want to do something about that.

Now you're just playing with words. Fine. I'll play that game. Since the evidence shows that actual things can cause change, where is the evidence that nonexistent things can cause change? Since there is no such evidence then a rational person operates on the most reasonable premise and the conclusions that follow from it. Apparently you are not interested in following the evidence after all.