God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[The Grand Nudger]

God fits what? Care to elaborate?

[Stucky]

God fits what? Care to elaborate?

Are you replying to me? If so, I don;t know what you're talking about?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I'm replying to a slightly less credulous apologist. Who at least attempts to explain his beliefs.

[Stucky]

No, I'm replying to a slightly less credulous apologist. Who at least attempts to explain his beliefs.

I explained my beliefs, you just don't see my explanations because you have closed your mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that must be it.

[Cinjin]

No, I'm replying to a slightly less credulous apologist. Who at least attempts to explain his beliefs.

I explained my beliefs, you just don't see my explanations because you have closed your mind.

Could you please refer us to the thread post that offers up those explanations. You personally, not a website.

That would put an end to this would it not?

Thank you.

[Minimalist]

I know you don't believe in God or Jesus but must you slander His name like that? I wouldn't use such sarcasm against your beliefs.

Yes. Mainly because it annoys the shit out of sanctimonious followers who think their "beliefs" merit respect....no matter how stupid they are.

[Shell B]

I know you don't believe in God or Jesus but must you slander His name like that? I wouldn't use such sarcasm against your beliefs.

Perhaps not, but you would suggest atheists are simply not open-minded.

[Strongbad]

..."That's why I was an agnostic previous to this, because I knew the limitations of knowledge and the subjective nature of our limited perceptions"...

Here we go again with the "former agnostic" attempt at authority. I repeat: bullshit.

So now that you're "born again", you no longer believe that there are limitations to knowledge and that our limited perceptions have a subjective nature?

[lucent]

We don't know where it all came from, not you not me. WE DON'T KNOW! It's just one us isn't afraid to admit that. I won't jump to 'goddidit' just because I don't know. There is no faith in 'I don't know'. You're the one taking things on faith. I'm stating the obvious and what's true at this point in time. I always stick to Occam's razer. State the obvious, stick to the simple till there is evidence for the more complex. Stick to explanations requiring the fewest assumptions (which I have).

You don't know that "we" don't know. Since you don't know, you don't know that either. Someone who doesn't know can't say what I know or don't know. Also, to say that I believe what I do because I am afraid to admit otherwise isn't true. I wasn't afraid of not knowing prior to my belief in God.

Saying I don't know is not applying Occums Razor. A design by an intelligent Creator is a much simplier explanation than saying it evolved by naturalistic processes. The naturalistic processes described by science don't even work, let alone explain how values as precise as one in 10 to the 37th power arise by chance.

Every time you ask me where the universe came from, I shall continue to answer with a "I don't know."
Until we have some idea with evidence of where it all came from, I'm going to stick to what is true right now at this point in time. Which is - I have no idea, and I won't pretend otherwise.

God has given us evidence of His existence.

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Meaning, that Gods existence is obvious just from the Creation itself. Meaning, you're surrounded by evidence, all the days of your life.

Let's just examine this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created?

Now, I happen to think that it takes a lot more faith to think that this all just came about by accident than not.

We don't know where it all came from, not you not me. WE DON'T KNOW! It's just one us isn't afraid to admit that. I won't jump to 'goddidit' just because I don't know. There is no faith in 'I don't know'. You're the one taking things on faith. I'm stating the obvious and what's true at this point in time. I always stick to Occam's razer. State the obvious, stick to the simple till there is evidence for the more complex. Stick to explanations requiring the fewest assumptions (which I have).

Every time you ask me where the universe came from, I shall continue to answer with a "I don't know."
Until we have some idea with evidence of where it all came from, I'm going to stick to what is true right now at this point in time. Which is - I have no idea, and I won't pretend otherwise.

I have never understood why those silly "it takes more faith to be an atheist"-type arguments are meant to be so compelling.

Pathetic isn't it? How can it take faith to not believe in something? Often they use special pleading to try and argue out of it. But you can't argue out of something with a fallacy.

---

Does science tell us that? One theory does. Some posit a re-occurring start point [don't they?]. And how do you conclude that this must have been "timeless, immaterial and transcendant"?

The mere fact the Universe began speaks to a transcendent process that created it. If time, space and matter were created..than whatever created it is not bound by their limitations.

I am also unconvinced by the fine tuning arguments. Chance is it did happen. A slim chance but a successful one. Although I do understand that logical order is intrinsic to the natural world and God fit's.

The only way they can get a naturalistic origin to become even remotely plausible is by positing multiple Universes. The precision we observe in physics is absurdly unlikely to come about due to mere chance. So, they make the odds likely by having infinite Universes instead of just one. The problem is if that you posit multiple Universes, you just make a creator infinitely more necessary. The fine tuning required for an infinite Universe generator is even more implausible than the fine tuning that accounts for life in this Universe.

Interesting points lucent, not that I'd quite agree with your conclusions, but I have no arguments against it, beyond contradiction, which seems the best we've achieved here so far.

Science tells us the Universe had a beginning. More specifically, that time space and matter had a beginning. Therefore, whatever caused the Universe to exist is timeless, immaterial and transcendent

Does science tell us that? One theory does. Some posit a re-occurring start point [don't they?]. And how do you conclude that this must have been "timeless, immaterial and transcendant"?

[personally: I believe this, but I also believe that this cannot be independantly verifiable]

I am also unconvinced by the fine tuning arguments. Chance is it did happen. A slim chance but a successful one. Although I do understand that logical order is intrinsic to the natural world and God fit's.

---

Here we go again with the "former agnostic" attempt at authority. I repeat: bullshit.

Repeat it all you want. Like it or not, I used to be one of you. I grew up in a secular household and believed many of the same things you do for the same reasons.

So now that you're "born again", you no longer believe that there are limitations to knowledge and that our limited perceptions have a subjective nature?

My view on human limitations hasn't changed, but my view of whether there is an absolute truth that is knowable has. We are limited, but our Creator is not, and He has communicated what that truth is to us, in a way that we can comprehend and apply to our lives in a tangible way.

..."That's why I was an agnostic previous to this, because I knew the limitations of knowledge and the subjective nature of our limited perceptions"...

Here we go again with the "former agnostic" attempt at authority. I repeat: bullshit.

So now that you're "born again", you no longer believe that there are limitations to knowledge and that our limited perceptions have a subjective nature?