Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Challenging Atheists

Hey there, a challenge to atheists....I am a believer in God and the word of the bible. Now without starting off an angry debate, I'd like to challenge any atheist within this group who thinks they can disprove God. I'd like to see the BEST arguments against the existence of God and all the plaudible reasons you can come up with for being an atheist. Facts, logical arguments all kinds, would love to hear what you have to say. Please as long as it isn't just some angry God bashing comments but real thought out answers!

Go on I may even relinquish my faith if you can disprove God to me! PM me or comment, whichever you prefer!

 

UPDATE HERE IS MY RESPONSE!!

 

 

Key word: SCIENTIFICALLY, and just what kind of experiement could be performed anywhere to prove the existence of God that is all powerful, outside of time, and outside the universe also but also within it! How can you prove that with a scientifical experiment?! It's almost insulting to our intelligence that evidence of God is all around us and a scientifical experiment is not even necessary (or even capable of being performed.) Don't we look at mountain ranges, perfect skies, perfect love between people in awe and does that not reflect God? Okay so I'm preaching a bit without any hard evidence. But to be honest even if there was hard evidence people would deny it anyway. Wasn't Jesus Christ - hard evidence of God denied by people? I know you may not even believe there was a Jesus Christ and that he was divine...why not?

 

 

Is not the bible a reliable anecdotal evidence of God and Jesus Christ? A book that hasn't changed in 2000 years, written by MANY witnesses to Jesus Christ, a book that if untrue would've been denied and rejected by people as untrue back then in Jerusalem in 30AD - were they not there to confirm it and accept it otherwise it wouldn't have survived 2000 years? The central message of Christendom - the Christian creed is even older than the bible and still has not changed? Aside from the bible, there are also the the dead sea scrolls which verify the authenticity of not only the new testament but also the old testament. Furthermore there are the new testament papyri which agains show the bibles reliability  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri) and these papyri are readily available in The British library and the Ashmolean museum in Oxford England. Not just the bible mentions Christ, but also ancient atheist writers such as Tacitas, also Josephus and Pliny the Younger (I think) mention Christ in their writings (Tacitas Book 15 of the Annals.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

You mention religious experiences, I to have never had what people might call a "religious experience" I never saw any angels, nor music from heaven....but that is just popular associated imagery to God (Haven't seen God in a grilled cheese sandwich either!) For me I just see the logic, I see the facts, I sense that we are made like God and by God logically. And that is something you can test to, live more like how God intended for us to and you'll find more joy and blessing in life - so it shows that God must've made us and therefore knows what is good for us! Test it if you don't believe me!

 

I understand your objections however as I am sure there are people who are making things up (the bible even mentions this of people coming in the name of God falsely) and people who are dishonest like the book of Mormon which is clearly made up with only 2 guys as witnesses to its authenticity who happen to be related! Christianity has bad "ambassadors" if you like to it, many Christians can give a bad impression of the bible, however this does not somehow make the bible false, it simply just shows people are sinful. Oh and I'm sure neutrological malfunction could also account for some of the weird things people experience to. The above is a problem with "religion" not with the truth in Christ or God.

 

An extra argument I would like to put out is also our morality. If there is no God, where does morality come from and why is morality universal amongst us (I.e we ALL think murder/rape/torture etc is wrong)? Some argue it is some kind of biological adaption to enable our survival and reproduction. If that is so then why is rape considered wrong, wouldn't rape benefit the survival of our species by having more offspring? But no, if I ask any one of you if you think it is right to rape or murder someone everyone altogether will say NO. I think points strongly towards God. Are they not the same thing God abhorrs also?

 

 

I think you are right about faith healing, though I cant personally verify it, is most likely a placebo effect. Most people wouldn't have the true faith to really perform such a miracle and any healing properties I think would be placebo. I say this as Jesus performed miracles, but then also so did his disciples. So I don't think it impossible faith healing. Certainly more plausible than magic though! Turning people into frogs! Yeah!

 

Well certainly the resurrection of Christ was from God, it's written in the bible the inspired word of God, and predicted hundreds of years before the new testament also. And if it wasn't from God, so someone pretended to be Christ and went so far as to be tortured, battered and killed? And conveniently happened to EXACTLY match the predicted Christ. (Check the book of Isaiah in your bible, or dead sea scrolls, or NT papyri, you choose!) There are over 500 witnesses for Christs resurrection, an empty tomb, and the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea so it would have been known to Roman, Jew, Christian alike. I think is mentioned in the book of Corinthians in a letter written by Paul - written not 5 years after Jesus'death. How do you explain an empty tomb? It was predicted and there were witnesses again. Just read the bible!

 

 

If you throw a ball in the air it is definitely going to come down and hit the ground again. But if you catch it before it does have you just defied the laws of gravity and created a miracle?

 

 

Many religions are out there to "choose" from. But let's not look at it like a religion supermarket where we choose our fave religion. Each of these religions claims to contain truth of God etc, so if they all conflict and contain different information that means some are going to wrong, all actually except 1 will be right. Truth is truth. There is this modern tendancy where people seem to think if you believe somethings true then it is true for you. This is clearly not right, for instance if you believe the earth is flat you are obviously mistaken, you beliving it is true doesn't make it anymore true, you are just mistaken. So only 1 religion is right. 

 

Christianity is the only religion where you cannot offer works or do things for God. Nothing you can offer is good enough, you cannot earn your way there in any way. You are INVITED to join the father in heaven if you simply accept the invitation with heart and mind. And obviously you cannot accept it if you don't believe it's true. It's funny many other "gods" out there all require people to do things for them, which to the God of the world is simply insulting really implying he hasn't already got whatever he wants and that WE, mere mortals actually have something to offer which He wouldn't have without us. I think this shows off the glory of God greatly!

 

Ultimately when it comes to finding the right religion, it is simply a case of finding the truth not what just suits your beliefs. The truth is there.

 

 

I disagree with you straight away about Christianity changing to ,eet the perceived needs of the time. Religon might change but the God of the world does not, nor has the bible since it was compiled. Infact there is really no need for the bible to change or evolve its still 100% relevant even today. Just read the book of Daniel it is a great example of a relevant issue that is the same today!

 

The old testament is the old covenant with the Jew's before the coming of Jesus. God ruled directly over the Jew's in this covenant as in the desert with Moses and on the battle fields with King David and other kings where he would give the enemy into David's hands. The law also included stoning to death anyone comitting adultery, murder, rape etc it seems like brutal stuff and it is. But the thing we need to observe is that God was present with Israel then and sin could have NO place in Gods presense so it was punishable by death. It says in the bible the wages of sin are death (that is still true today.) If God were all powerful and loving he couldn't allow sin to spread amongst his people (it did anyway) and you can read in the bible the bitter consequences of it. I think peoples shock at the sin deserving death comes from people simply not appreciating the genuine evil they are committing and dont forget they were in God's presense! The people of Sodom who God destroyed, that could be argued as bloodthirsty. But however it was because not 1 single person there was righteous, all were corrupt. Theres even a quote in the bible where God basically says (paraphrasing) "If there was JUST 1 righteous person there I wouldn't destroy them" however there were none.

 

Anyways this is the old testament covenant a new covenant was formed with Jesus, rather than us die for our sins Jesus died instead as the ultimate sacrifice and so we could come to the  Father. Thus no more stonings. 

 

Please if you could point anymore inconsistencies you find? Sorry I dont mean that sarcastically but anymore examples you could come up with?

 

 

This is an interesting logical argument. But I think you are just wrong on this ocasion as if God were all powerful then again its impossible for him to create something he can't do, also impossible for him to mistakes also. This is a real paradox with what you're saying. It is impossible for God to create say a weight he couldn't lift because God is all powerful. It's a circular argument as God could create a weight he couldnt lift but also there is no weight he couldn't lift either!

 

 

You're absolutely right that all of Gods creation has gone exactly to plan even to this day. Nothing has gone wrong. 

 

You may think of all the evil in the world (which is permitted by God) and wonder how it could have gone to plan? The evils of the world are often what draw us closer to God, when we desperately need Him. When theres suffering people quite often turn to God as no other alternative and find Love and satisfaction there. You see they maybe suffering in the world, but they have their eternal souls also which is what God is saving and what matters. The bible says it quite clearly and its quite logical to, "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his immortal soul?" If you're rich and healthy and peaceful now on earth, what does it count for when you're dead? Nothing. Your riches, your health, peace are nothing. We put too much importance on these thing and commit sin with our contented worldliness never thinking we are going to die. 

 

"And how disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless. In wartime not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever."

 

 - The screwtape letters C.S Lewis (essential reading if you're an atheist informing you of who you are being manipulated by. SHOCKING reading, you might even find you're similar to the "patients" mentioned in it!)

 

God is Love. True Love could not exist without the possibility to hate also. Which makes the choice to love so beautiful amongst so much evil. That is the freewill that God gave us. You're right about God being all knowing and that contradicting freewill I don't have an answer to that! It's a real paradox! The wonders of God surely!

 

I've seen the quote in the bible about the 1 sin that can't be forgiven about denying the Holy spirit. Again I have no idea about that. So sure I have my unanswered questions and my doubts do come up for me sometimes but my faith is stronger and I see more plausible arguments for Christendom than Atheism or any other religion!

 

Well thats the end of my response. Hope you find it an interesting read! Sorry about response time I've only just been able to muster up the energy to write a full response! Thanks for taking the time to write to me Phage I've only addressed your argument out of all the comments (so feel special!!) so far. I may write another response to other arguments from other users another time. All at once it is JUST SO MUCH WRITING. 

 

One last quote from the Screwtape letters:

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

"Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous--that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real".

Remember, he is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (Oh that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!) you don't realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear What He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle it the end of a morning", the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind", he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No .73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere logic". He is now safe in Our Father's house.

You begin to see the point? Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes. Keep pressing home on him the ordinariness of things."

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

If you don't even consider the possibility of God now, or search Him out, then I'd say its quite simply you don't WANT to believe in God.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~RESPONSE TO MSTITI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Altruism definition: Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness. 

 

That is hardly what you are talking about which is pure selfishness, "selfish gene" type theory. There are a number of these type of books. I remember reading "***** wars" as an atheist an finding it extremely life minimalising and highly derogatory to us, especially women! If we really were animals, and of course many of us can become like animals through our behaviour and conduct then I would not be writing this I'd be out having group sex on the street with lots of girls whilst murdering all the men in sight trying to allow my genes to live forever through my offspring. Don't animals do this already, you've seen the wild life shows the males fighting each other off and having sex with all the females?

 

If rape has low chance of pregnancy at 15% which is the same as normal intercourse then whats the difference? That will means that rape would be a viable reproduction strategy. If rape only had a 5% chance of pregnancy and normal intercourse had 15% then you might have an argument there. But you are right....people aren't animals like that, rape isnt done for that intention, it is as you said for power and domination etc. However if we were animals it might not be for that reason which seperates us from animals. You dont see animals having irrational or "unhelpful" emotions, animals dont commit suicide or do self destructive things like we do.....

 

Also one other point if rape really were considered an advantageous reproduction strategy then there wouldn't just be 1 act of rape but MULTIPLE by many different people so I think conception would be just as likely as if it were just between a consenting partner. If you don't think this gang rape couldn't happen, well it already does as I'm sure you know if you watch the news! Sorry hope this isn't too disgusting for you, understand from what you said it is a sensitive issue for you and it is a disgusting thing I think also.

 

 

PS: One other point to "altruism" amongst us that you describe, maybe it isn't just a selfish gene survival strategy and it is just Love for each other that you're describing but with a different label of "selfish genes"?

 

PPS: I will add that I did used to believe in "selfish gene theory" purely because I behaved like such an animal I was able to recognise my own behaviour in that theory. 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------RESPONSE TO PHAGE-------------------------------------------------------------

 

But if God is God and is outside of the universe and time then theres very little a bubbling test tube is going to do to prove God. Though I do not deny that there could be evidence for God within science, its something I hope to get around to doing more thoroughly. The problem is only relying on science for our answers, we seem to have idolised, and even mythologised science, worshipping it as a sort of idol or beacon of truth. Though there is nothing wrong with science in itself, it is only one way of looking at things, and looking at things from the outside. It is just 1 'lense' at looking at things. You should try to look at things also through other 'lenses' like theology. There is plenty of evidence also within the world, right under our noses that defys our understanding also, look at what science doesn't yet/or maybe never will understand, and what we're confused about and don't understand. We don't always understand the things in life, death, relationships, our "purpose" our "existence" these are all things we want to know about, and are often confused about - we want to know what they are but can't seem to find out or we distract ourselves from them by closing our minds. Science can't tell us why, only what is there before us, from the outside. Trying to use science as reason is flawed.

You are right about mountains, love and all things nice don't necessarily prove the existence of the Christian God, they don't specify that they are the work of the Islamic God or Jewish God either. But I think when you look at the "intelligence" of the design of our world, the fact that it is a miraculous balance that enables life. If the world were any closer to the sun we would all burn, but instead we don't we are able to live, same if the earth were any further from the sun. And you know what the chances of all that happening are? Enough to put dusty old hard hearted atheism on the shelf. If all the beauty in our world was by chance and not a miracle and not of someones design it would not be beautiful, it would be meaningless. Beauty itself would be meaningless. But anyways, it doesn't prove Christianity, but it is evidence of the existence of a "deity" as you all like to refer.

You are right also that a great many people have claimed, and do claim to be prophets. It is understandable and right not to take these people seriously. But look at this way, of all the false prophets out there, which of them have any evidence for them performing miracles or being divine of any kind? And obviously many people have made wild claims like these, but whose names can you actually think of? None except Jesus, who is the most famous Man and God in history. Nevermind famous celebrities who are famous for 10 years or even a career. Jesus has been famous for 2000 years, and even longer when people were anticipating his arrival so more than 2000 years!!! Before the foundations of the earth!

I think me and you are reaching a point in our arguments where we are gonna find it hard to argue anymore without us repeating ourselves and having to move away from you might call "hard evidence" and a scientic microscope view because I think these will not do. I mean we're told anyway by God that there will be no miraculous signs to prove His existence in the bible, except finally at the end when He comes again to judge the world and us souls on it! At which point it is too late for any unrepentant people. But anyway, we'll go on and see how it goes!

Well there are many characters throughout history that are recorded in books, like Napolean, Henry VIII, Guy Fawkes. I mean surely we all happily accept the reliability of history books about them, we have faith that what we're told about these fellows is true. So, why not the account of Jesus, which have been accounted for by more people, and accepted for longer as truth? I disagree with you that most people would accept hard evidence of Jesus as God, I mean the Jew's of 3AD whenever it was got to witness Jesus, His miracles and wisdom first hand and yet many didn't believe in him, they thought it blasphemy that He claimed to be God. If there is evidence for something surely we believe it. Like there is evidence from satellite photos that the world is spherical. But sure we can research, and find more evidence, and find out whether the evidence is reliable. It would be foolish just to point blank reject the evidence unless you had grounds, or if your point of view then came to have no evidence and credibility then you change your point of view and your belief based on new evidence.

You don't have good enough reason to believe He was divine? I mean I sort of understand, I provided you with evidence and other stuff as evidence for Jesus and God. But it is a hard thing to accept as truth, it's something I struggled with before as we don't know just how locked, and DEAD our heart is and it needs reviving! It's a very personal, spiritual, issue of the heart. Yes, yes I know I'm preaching away! You kinda said it, that we are rarely offered unequivocal evidence for things, yet we happily believe other things as truth, we just dont want to accept Jesus because as you said again, it would we would have to change and it would show us up as being the evildoers that we are. When you live in darkness long enough, it becomes your light, so when actual light comes in to save us from our ourselves we dont welcome it because we love the dark too much now. It's a hard thing to do, becoming a believer in the Christian God is NOT easy. It's riddled with doubts, painful confessions, demons from the past, hard hearted accepting the truth. Like CS Lewis described his conversion to Christendom as a child kicking and screaming. What better evidence is there for aliens over God?

First off, the Bible has NOT changed. It has indeed though been copied and translated many times though, but despite this it is possible to compare ancient Greek Bibles to present day and see they are infact unchanged. Have a look at this old bible, its 1600 years old. Reads exactly the same as my "new international" version of the bible. http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

And you are wrong about the bible being written by people who hadn't met him, as the first 4 books of the New testament are accounts of his disciples themselves, not to mention Peter also! Well, I didn't just mention the dead sea scrolls, I also mentioned the new testament papyri which can be seen in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford if you live in the UK They along with the dead sea scrolls contain books of the bible and recount history of that time and are in agreement, but also the writers I mentioned such as Tacitas, also record history of that time, and all mention Jesus Christ, so surely that at least can be assumed to be true as we have 3 sources of information. As for the history mentioned in the Bible, I trust its authenticity, it would have no reason to lie (think about it), but that isn't entirely the point of the Bible, it's the inspired word of God, its designed to cause people to know God and allow God to save their souls and cause them to repent and change their lives to being centred around God. It's not an encyclopedia of history. If God is our creator then certainly He knows what is best for us and what we need, its arrogant to assume we do (which we do arrogantly assume. Me included.) Another way of looking at the Bible is, the fact its a totally intricate span of books written over a span of over 1500 years, I don't see how a human acting alone could have planned that if it werent divinely inspired. Anyways can you find any evidence that the bible is NOT accurate in its recollection of history back then?

Big lie principle, well I see it works both ways. It's either a HUGE lie if you say there is no "deity" when there is and likewise....no......actually I was gonna say its just as huge a lie if you say there is a deity when there isn't...but to be honest it wouldn't be, because we couldn't be accountable to God if we said it, and it would be meaningless anyway and there would be no consequences of Hell etc. But if you say there is no deity when there is, then you're in trouble! So I think that principle works against atheism, its a much bigger thing to say there is no God, and atheism comes with scientific evidence against God and men in authroity such as Richard Dawkin claiming it isn't true, everyone believes it, Big lie principle right there!

Though the Big lie principle didn't work with Jesus, He made BIG claims, and he came with the authroity that he demonstrated by being able to heal people and drive out demons and save the the whole of humanity! But few believed him, like you guys! And why would he lie? He was hated, tortured and murdered for it, hardly any human incentive to lie (though he wasn't human as such.)

I see much joy in living the way God intended us to. You shouldn't look at God putting "restrictions" on sexual stuff, they're not, they're the blueprints of how sexuality should be properly done. He designed it, so why should we tell Him how it is better to have it. Truthfully, any deviating from Gods blueprints from sex is just corrupt sex. And anyone who isn't a virgin, and has had sex outside of marriage (for example) knows the pain and grief of then finding that person we were intimate with gone from our lives, or leave us, or hurt us, or use us. Surely sex is meant to be enjoyed, it shouldnt cause these things, but thats because we choose to have sex outside of marriage and go into all sorts of perversions that just hurt us because we think we know best. Truly, sex is BEST enjoyed in a marriage by two people that love each other, aren't selfish (doesnt just quickly climax, roll off and ignore his woman or disappear in the morning) marriage protects us from these things as the two are committed to each other. AND most all WE KNOW these things to be true because we have experienced them!!

Yep you're quite right, we should scrutinise things before just blindly accepting things as true. Though, there is the risk here is over scrutinsing something, and basically, nit picking, going over tiny uninportant details that may agree/disagree and coming to a conclusion on something so small and insignificant. I don't know if there are any non-christian corroborations on the miracles of Jesus, might be another thing to research, but if they were non Christian they wouldn't have believed the miracles anyway and wouldnt have written about them. I mean unless Jesus was playing tricks and when he changed water to wine he just quickly swapped the jugs and they saw him and wrote down that he was a trickster! A man willing to die for "tricks"....hmm....

Morality as proof of God...I didnt feel that the detail was "lovely" though, extremely crude and degrading to us. That theory - which I used to believe when I was an atheist is so, so , so negative and degrading. Personally I disagree with you when you say rape is an ineffective tool for reproduction, I think it could be highly effective at expanding our population. If we were all raping each other, think of how many more acts of sex that is, and the fact you wouldnt rape someone once, but probably many times - I think pregnancy and childbirth would increase. Besides if we're "fair" and care about others who are hurt then rape could never evolve as a strategy (even if it is good for expanding the population) because it isn't fair, its not remotely caring and is disgusting and twisted. If we care so much about "reproductive tools" besides rape, then why do we have contraception? It shows that reproduction isnt necessarily whats on our minds like animals but sexual pleasure, perversion, intimacy, using people etc.

A minority of people, do seem to appear to have no conscience...we can see that with figures in history like Hitler for example. I don't see any proof that it is biological reasons that cause it though - in that we are born like it. I don't believe that and would like to see some evidence for that first before even considering it. Well I don't know you personally, but do not seeing images of those things, or hearing stories of torture or murder cause you fear, or grief in anyway? Without lying to yourself can you say that? Would torture to you, if you were being tortured simply be meaningless, would you not cry out for help, and scream in pain, and weep and wish it wasn't you being tortured, and then would you feel a sense of wanting "justice" or revenge against that person who did it? The fact you would want revenge against that person (I can safely assume you would), to get justice, also shows you reflecting God's image. Justice in blood, like the cross of Jesus, God's justice. Have you ever tried to live Gods way? You can test God in this, turn away from all the things you do, and trust God, and keep his commands and see if you aren't totally blessed, and relieved from any burdens. TRY IT!!! You owe it to yourself, as does everyone to at least "try" God and read the Bible.

I think that all people get a conscience, I mentioned earlier about Hitler, even a HUGE murderer such as him has a conscience. You see alot of murderers who kill their victims then kill themselves, they have a conscience and so carry out justice on themselves by blood. Justice by blood. There's a definite conencton between the two. You know when people are wronged badly, they say "I want blood."

So, you are an atheist, you dispute the existence of God, a long with others in here, and yet, you haven't read it. You owe it to yourselves to read it! You can't possibly knock soemthing till you've tried it! You know how that goes! I know its a long book, took me ages to read it, but you need to, as much as any other of your books like "God delusion" by Richard Dawkin if you've read it. I don't think you can get much crazier than believing you're God, but then how do you measure craziness? Lol....Jesus was tortured and killed because he claimed to be the son of God and was the leader of a "cult" or just his disciples which the Romans I think didn't care about. It was the Jew's themselves that wanted Him to be crucified, the Roman Pontias Pilate didn't want to crucify as he found him innocent! And even a Roman centurion professed he was the son of God.

Well, we are all happy to believe other history books about other historical characters, its just Jesus we have a problem with believing in. There is no way Jesus, being dead (but lets assume he was just stunned or something for arguments sake) in a whipped, beaten to hell, holes in hands and legs could have rolled a huge stone away form his tomb entrance, and it was a tomb carved into stone, theres no way out!! Plus the Jews posted guards outside the tomb to prevent any of the discples from emptying the tomb (so that they could then claim that Jesus has risen when he hadn't.) But it....it comes down to whether you trust the accounts of this and its evidence.

Explain to me how it couldn't be a miracle? I used it as a way of showing that miracles aren't by magic spells or the like but it can simply be God reaching his hand in to disrupt the normal course of things. Like gravity in this case. It's just a different way of looking at what a miracle is.

I said that God can't be earned by works like other religions by gifts, token gestures etc. It is simple given and we either accept it or reject it. Of course out of love for God we make gestures to people and to him, to honour him. Just not to earn him. It's like you give the roses to your lover as a sign of your love, not to earn their love. But just bare in mind that God doesn't NEED anything from us, because all belongs to God already, like a child who borrows money off of his father to buy him a present, the father is pleased at the thought, but it is nothing he didn't already have and the child can take no credit for being so good etc.

I am angry at your assertion about my lack of understanding about other religions because you you yourself openly argue with me about the Christian God but are not familiar with the Bible!!!

I think I've said enough. The rest of your points I'll leave. It is better for you to read the Bible instead, and as I've been repeating, you owe it to yourself. I can't convince you to believe, it has to be your search for truth and God. But I have achieved what I wanted here in this forum and nobody has been able to offer a single good reason to stop believing in God. There might be some amongst all these pages of comments, but theres too many to read and your arguments seemed to be the best out of the ones I saw.

Oh heres a link about old testament law versus new testament: http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otlaws.htm
that should answer your question.

PS. What you believe is impossible to as I have said already! I have been very open minded with you and have looked at evidence for each argument you put up and have reasonably concluded that God does exist. How is that close minded?

PPS. I wish you well and good luck in your research! REMEMBER: READ THE BIBLE. hehe

 


 

The5Cs The5Cs 18-21 419 Responses Sep 28, 2009

Your Response

Cancel

Oh Max, we have been over this, remember?
You start off talking about the beginning of the universe (along with some nebulous claim about what the majority of cosmologists supposedly say... that statement has no meaning, Max) - and then suddenly switch to talking about the expansion of the universe.
What is your topic here, Max? The origin of the universe or the expansion of the universe?
Two different topics, Max... you know that.
i know that i've already schooled you on BVG (and especially on what Vilenkin has said about the sort of nonsense you are trying to introduce here), and i'm quite happy to do it again, if necessary, but i'm astonished that the lesson doesn't seem to have taken root the first time around.

The premise that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

As such, the fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

Oh Max, are you really still peddling the same old shonky arguments?
"The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology"
Nonsense
What you'll find is a statement that the universe began to expand
Everything else you write after this opening howler is, therefore, pointless.

With this reality in mind, consider the following:

If your gods exist, then they had a cause.
If they had no cause then you are claiming that they were just always there.
If you can make that claim about your gods, why not just make the same claim about the universe, thereby cutting out the middleman and simplifying matters nicely.

Simple, mundane logic

@Lightsbane

The premise that the universe began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology.

With this reality in mind, consider the following:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
(3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

(4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.
(5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.
(6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

http://bit.ly/SSsy8x

As you can see, in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the syllogism's premisses.

In other words, it's simple, mundane logic.

I'm surprised no one has used Occam's razor principle in these arguments. It's fun to watch you mortals butt heads.

I will disprove Jehovah when you disprove the twenty seven hundred, ninety-nine other religions to have deities at some point in human history.


. . .


. . .


. . .

Exactly.

You can disprove reality? Really?

(This I gotta see ...)

Please proceed ...

Reality: the quality or state of being actual or true.

No, I cannot disprove truth. God is not a truth. Sorry.

But I don\'t to disprove Jehovah, for the same reasons Christian sermons never begin with: \"There is no Odin, Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, the Great Spirit, Thor, Jupiter, Allah, and all other gods but Jehovah, because . . .\"

When you understanding why you reject all *other* religions, you will understand why I reject yours.

It is critically ironic that we agree on at least one thing--all religions *except* Christianity are bullshit. I just take one further.

Just tossing my two cents sorry for interrupting but your assertion of other gods is a red-herring because of the fact that no one actually and traditionally follows or loves Odin, Zeus, Ra, Thor, Jupiter and some others, we can disprove those based on popularity and lack of historical evidence on their existences alone while \'Jehovah\' I rather call him Yahweh\'s existence is verified by the very DNA that\'s designed and coded into the atomic existence we behold today. Creation has a spoken language and that is through God\'s creation of the universe and the world, just take a look into archeology, mathematics, philosophies, apologetics, metaphysics, psychology, anthropology, christology, bibliology, harmartiology, astronomy, biochemistry, history, physics and other bodies of human knowledge, and you will discover Him.

To disprove the other gods, you use *argumentum ad numerum,* and that doesn\'t make sense. Truth is not based on consensus.

Moreover, not only is our DNA explained by the gradual evolutionary slope, even if it were designed, it could be designed by *any* god. The farthest your argument goes is deism.

It makes plenty of sense, the truth to you is relative am I correct? Therefore there has to be an absolute truth and an objective truth. Since you do not believe in God all you depend on is relativity and subjectivity, which is based on opinion alone than actual truth that stands on it\'s own. Otherwise there MUST be a consensus that is how human beings come to final decisions, you have to agree with what is right and what is wrong also correct? It\'s the same thing. Some votes are more valid than others due to reality\'s basis.

DNA is too complex and too sophisticatedly crafted not to mention unique within every single organism that exists to be a mere evolutionary factor, the building blocks had to start somewhere before it could \'evolve\' further the engine keeps running because the driver provides the fuel without the driver there is only chaos and discord, otherwise it screams design from an sentient intelligence!

God is not absent from his creation. Now to say it could be designed by any God you would have compare the physical and invisible qualities of the universe and the world in order to point it towards that very specific God that created the abstract and concrete, matter and non-matter.

What are you talking about? No, not correct. Not even remotely correct.

Truths are objective, and do not require a god to be such. It was widely believed that Earth was flat; by your standards, it became truth until people disagreed.

And since you base \"truth\" of changing opinions, you would be the one who has subjective (and incorrect) truths.

___________

Richard Dawkins addresses this in his book, \'The God Delusion.\' He is stating that everything appears designed because evolution is a gradual slope, selecting, naturally, the key traits required. Oh, and it has had three billion years, so . . . little bit of time there.

________

Yes, about the abstract and concrete, matter and non-matter--all gods claim to do that.

_______

And moreover, who created God? If God is required create human intelligence, that surely, Supreme God is required to create God intelligence. And surely, Infinitely Supreme God is required to create Supreme God intelligence. And surely, Doubly Infinitely Supreme God is required to create Infinitely Supreme God. And so continues the paradox.

@Bane

Why is there anything at all instead of nothing? Explore this question and, at the end, you\'ll find the reality of God as these learned ones did:

\"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.\" - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx) Go figure! :)

If truth is objective then God exists because the truth does not change. God does not change and the truth is judged by an objective and sovereignly higher standard that transcends humanity, that standard is God himself. You have to understand what God\'s nature is because the truth is a non-material quality of God. Like mathematics, the laws of logic are transcendent truths which God created. God also cannot lie. For lies are contrary to his nature, just like God cannot be tempted with evil, again contrary to his nature.
------------------------------
Please this argument has been rebuked already.
Why would THE CREATOR need a CREATOR? Do you see the circular illogical fallacy you committed? God made everything: time/space/matter/spiritual/, he is eternal, not bound by the laws HE created. He can also utilize the laws he ordained in order to act upon the supernatural in a seemingly miraculous way as we do not completely understand how these laws are operated according to his design, for he knows far more about them than we do. We can only know the basic principles.
----------------------
He (Dawkins) also stated and mentioned The Creator many times throughout his angry unintelligible diatribe you call a book, however pride and vanity in his \'intelligence\' clouded him from the ultimate truth because deeper science reveals God\'s nature and attributes and unique fingerprints. Einstein himself believed in God due to his passion for science as he recognized these same things. He just didn\'t believe in a personal God. Many other scientists also believe in God even Yahweh. Evolution requires intelligent design.

God designated evolution within his creation to grow and flourish and adapt overtime, he assigned micro evolution, ie through natural selection and environmental conditions. God instilled His Creation the instinctive demand to adapt and reconcile with their environment accordingly, furthermore one species can also produce many different varieties. However, that species always has the same gene pool.

Without God and intelligent design, microevolution cannot operate or fluctuate on it\'s own, there has to be an order or there is only discord. God made the laws that we are able to observe and study, he is not bound by them since He Is The Creator, however he can operate within His Laws however he chooses that does not contradict his nature.
----------------------
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.\"

Mind listing these \'gods\' who \'claimed\' to create the universe and the world? Next we can begin comparing their qualities and attributes to Romans 1:20 to check if they verify with this \'claim\' as Yahweh\'s theological/biblical/scientific nature matches perfectly.

I am not a God-of-the-Gaps theorist. Because science can\'t explain it, doesn\'t mean you need a magic fairy. Moreover, you have no way of deducing which magic fairy to choose.

\"A lack of scientific evidence is not proof of God. It is proof of a lack of scientific evidence.\"-Lawrence Krauss.

And by the way, 93% of *elite* scientists deny the philosophy of . . . religion. Odd. You seem so certain science was contrarian to atheism.

If you\'re going to continue referencing, very illogically, a theoretically non-disprovable deistic God-of-the-Gaps, I am going to ignore you.

\"Is that how you want to play it? A God-of-the-Gaps? Because if you use little pockets of the unknown as your proof of God, then God is an ever-receding gap of scientific ignorance!\"-Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist.

P.S. If \'The God Delusion\' is angry, unintelligible rambling, I would hate to see your definition of scripture, such as Deuteronomy, or Leviticus.

Why would you ignore me because of my defense? God is provable very provable (especially scientifically) for He has revealed himself through His Creation that can be scientifically studied and also through The Bible. You don\'t have much knowledge of the scriptures which is your down-fall Deuteronomy and Leviticus were given to the Jews (Israelites) during the foundation of their nation to build their ethics and social customs and laws during the ancient days. You have to study and examine the Hebrew and Greek archives of the terminologies used to write the books as they were originally written to understand the context, history, meanings, ethics, cultural meaning of the scriptures.

The original translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles are the correct interpretations of the scriptures to reveal the exact context and validity of The Word through critically diligent studies, examinations, analysis and discernment, to prevent discord and misinterpretations supplemented with faithfully righteous prayer as well. (Acts 17:11)

I\'m not playing games or using gaps. I\'m speaking my defenses with reasonable arguments. (1 Peter 3:15) I hope you learn to realize that God doesn\'t play dice with the universe. Your lack of knowledge of God and the true understanding of the scriptures is true ignorance in this \'debate\'.

BTW are you going to give me that list of gods to compare with Yahweh to match Romans 1:20? :) Or bother trying to refute my other posts? Or do you not have a response to them? If not that is fine.

I refuse to argue a God-of-the-Gaps. You\'re saying \"God must . . .\" Well, no. Just because science does not comprehend how it\'s done does not mean it must be a god.

As for the farthest stance-deism-I invite you to replace any mention of \"God\" or \"LORD\" in the Bible with \"Odin\" or \"Ra\" or \"Vishnu.\" It becomes no less improbable.

The sad thing about atheism-really, the only sad thing-is that if I am right, I will never know; if I am wrong, you\'re god will prove to be an *******.

10 More Responses

'god' is the glue that holds this whole thing together,
he is not found in your churches, temples, or is it something that we can contemplate.
'god' is the peace love compassion that is in our soul - heart - energies
'god' does not judge, forsake nor comfort
because "god" is you, in every planet, every star, every cell
we keep looking for this to be outside of our being, when is it everything in our very being
it is in the "silence" of the mind and the listening with the heart, that will lead us to gathering of our energies that is 'god' (love peace so on)!

And what of the Creator? The One who brought everything into existence?

Max, when you say \" everything\", by definition, that would include *everything*, including any creator, assuming there is one. I\'m going to talk to you as if I were your English teacher, but you should say \"who created everything else\".

You, forgot something, it\'s not any creator, it is the jehovah\'s witness god. What else could it be?

@P245

I. So long as you understood the thrust of my rejoinder :)

II. Baby steps :)

The Bible is a plagiarized set of mythologies taken from other cultures the illiterate sheep herders had contact with. The creation myth, the story of the flood, angels, the devil, virgin birth resurrection, all these were taken from Sumerian, Egyptian, Assyrian and Persian mythologies. Water into wine is taken directly from Grecian mythology. So the Bible is literally a stolen mythology. The word of many gods across many centuries.

Actually, you\'ve got it backwards. Its the pagans who plagiarized the Bible, not the other way around. Remember, the Bible was composed first.

Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary; Horus was born of a virgin, Iris.

Jesus was the only begotten son of Jehovah; Horus was the only begotten son of Osiris.

Jesus\'s birth was heralded by the North Star; Horus\'s birth was heralded by the star Sirius.

Jesus, in infancy, was attacked by Herod; Horus, in infancy, was attacked by Herut.

Jesus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and cured blindness; Horus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and cured blindness.

Jesus was crucified; Horus was crucified.

Jesus went to Hell; Horus went to Hell.

Jesus came back after three days; Horus came back after three days.

I\'m pretty sure the Egyptians came before the Romans.

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/ you should really do your homework and thorough research...recycling defeated arguments is a shame.

@Bane

Check your facts. Messianic prophecies are from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, these predate the Egyptian myths that plagiarized them.

But it wasn\'t. And we know that as historical fact. The hebrews could not write down the stories or even come up with such a complex mythology. But the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Sumerians and Assyrians did have the tools too create such complicated myth. This isn\'t conjecture its fact. The Bible is an old book for sure but the societies it was stolen from were far older and more advanced.

@The

Argumentum assertio does not a substitute for actual evidence make. Sorry, try again.

Very singsongy of you, but considering we have older Assyrian, Egyptian and Sumerian texts stating these myths before the Hebrews were Hebrews...this is fact Max. You don\'t seem to like it. But the Bible is plagarized.

That\'s a non sequitur since extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures are reproductions of older texts no longer extant. You\'re comparing apples to oranges.

The Egyptians came up with rhwse myths a full millenia before there were Hebrews at all let alone Hebrews who could write.

Yet more fallacious argumentum assertio. Aut disce aut discede.

Max talking about learning!
Wow!

8 More Responses

I read just the first paragraph of this post before I switched off. wtf is this christian doing here? Can he not read that this experience is entitled "I am an atheist"? Isn't there an experience on this site for Christians? The thing that annoys me most about christians is that so many of them go around attempting to convert everyone else! You people go and believe anything you want, just don't bug me about it

You may not have picked the right story if you want well ordered debate. The threads on here are more interwoven than A Game of Thrones. There\'s some interesting points but a heck of a lot of nonsensical cut and paste trolling to wade through to get there.....

@Twoshades

Happy Thursday! If I may, where, in your opinion, does the Bible condone slavery. More importantly, on what objective moral basis do you dare condemn anyone\'s values as immoral?

@Everything

The expressions of these - actual professionals of science, btw, not fanboys - debunks your allegation that as one learns more and more about science becoming an atheist is inexorable. In fact, given the statistics I referred you to, it seems the opposite is more likely.

Hence, my invitation for you to delve deeper into the sciences instead of being content with your current cosmetic level of apprehension.

Are you referring to that Pew survey, Max?

Are you referring to that Pew survey, Max?

I believe in God c:

As did the men in your avatar, yes?

At least I have something to fall back on. Whereas science won't get you anywhere after you die.
Good luck.

Neither will religion.good luck.

There's no where to go!

Guess we will just have to live our lives and not fear death.

True for anyone. We shall. I hope you will see the light. Consequences are the same for everyone in a society of laws. We have many purposes. Life matters. We just do not live our lives for death.

I comprehend it fine. I just stopped believing in invisible creatures when I matured. Just because you haven't, does not make us un-purposed. If you want to waste your life living for some utopian dreamland that does not and could never exist, you are welcome to your delusion. Just don't be surprised when you die and the electrical impulses die that you just vanish from existence and there is no afterlife.

I realize this is beyond your comprehension, so I will leave you to your fantasy.

One cannot deny that which does not exist. Do you deny Cthulthu?

While it may be nice to have religion to fall back on and give you hope, it's false hope. We must all face the fact that the only place we go when we die is the ground. You shouldn't be religious just because you're scared of death, but that's one of the main reasons that religion still prevails in the modern age of science.

@Every

I agree 1000% because all scientists are atheists like these brilliant men here:

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh ... wait ...

Did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx) Go figure! :)

Max, this tired, constantly recycled pap was answered by Ovy118 more than a week ago. i will copy place his reply here to save you the effort of finding it.

Ovy118

Actually it doesn't say that. It says, "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view." 
I performed a word search. The word "abjure" does not appear, and I doubt that the scientists would swear an oath on the subject. Also note that the poll was conducted within a select group of scientists, is several years old, and the Pew Charitable Trust is anything but neutral of the subject of religion. One thing they left unanswered - and I think it is important - is how do these scientists define God. I find that a large number of people redefine "god" as a means of getting around using the words agnostic or atheist. My favorite is, "Well, if you define god as the total of all the natural laws that govern the universe, then I believe in god."

Surely you remember this, Max... you fled from it quickly enough.

@Janine

(facepalm)

Read the article, lol. Then you'll see why I couldn't possible be bothered with his drivel. I value my time you know :)

Actually, Max, then as now, you fled. Then you had the temerity to come sneaking back and re-post it here.

He is busy trying to post in a new thread and cannot be bothered answering any of the simple questions.

Exactly. I did not say that all scientists were atheists. I didn't even mention scientists. I mentioned science. People who are enlightened by it are more likely to not believe in God, but some still do.
Also, quite a few of the people you mentioned were alive long ago when the general sentiment was still religious and there was yet to be some of the breakthroughs we have now. Especially Francis Bacon.

Been there, done that. Maxx will always reply with something that misrepresents what you said, or a leading question, or a false dilemma, most of the time with pompous Latin jargon, and never acknowledge what you took a lot of time to explain. Very frustrating...

14 More Responses

Max indicated he wished to discuss the Phylogeny of life, to which end he offered me:
In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote:
“Life appears to have had ** many origins **. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
This split quote (note the disconnect in the middle of the quote), is taken from Professor Gordon’s essay “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay”. This essay discussed the history of single-celled organisms, and did so without firm evidence (which is why Professor Gordon used the word ‘speculative in the title). Let me repeat that: speculative and without firm evidence.
This is a reputable (indeed, admirable) scientist being so gracious as to ruminate publicly on a small part of his field’s subject matter (incidentally, his interest here is cladistic rather than phylogenetic). It is disgraceful that his musing has been distorted and misused. Disgraceful!
Despite this, Professor Gordon remains tolerant, and wrote:
“The quotations you cite may not be exactly verbatim, but they are close enough. They are, however, quoted out of context. Whoever wrote the tract is likely not a scientist and may not have a clear understanding of scientific method or principles. The creationist and ID views of evolution are religious and theological, not scientific. I do not agree with them.
Yours,
Malcolm Gordon”

How dare you misuse another's intellectual work, Max! How dare you!
It is noon, and I will now enjoy an early lunch (I may even soothe myself with a chocolate muffin), and at some stage this afternoon I will address your offering on the Cambrian period… if I can be bothered spending time on such vacuousness.

What misuse? Dr. Gordon is correct when explaining that the tree of life (phylogeny) may have various “roots” and not a single starting point.

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin's theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: "The Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms-maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type


Source : Archaeology, "The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual," by Suzan Mazur. October 11. 2008 - Interview on http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

"I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification." - Henry Gee

Max, do you seriously think that today’s scientists are still working with some pristine version of what Darwin wrote more than 150 years ago? Darwin developed his work from a limited (by today’s standards) range of fossils and with no knowledge of genetics. Given those limitations of the base of knowledge with which he worked, his achievements are truly extraordinary.
Today, we are knee-deep in fossils, and we have a comprehensive (and rapidly expanding) understanding of genetics. We know that gene flow, genetic drift, and recombination can contribute to biological change… obviously, you didn’t get the memo about that…. but so what? Evolution is probably not restricted to natural selection. Big deal! This does not make Darwin wrong in any way, it does not remove the primacy of natural selection, and it does nothing to evolution except strengthen our confidence in it.
Have you spoken with Dr. Newman about how you are representing his words? i would be interested to see his response... so much so that i have just now sent him an e-mail and asked for his comments, which, if he assents, i will share with you in their entirety should he be so kind as to respond.

As many, many reputed scientists in many, many different fields have confirmed through evidence (and I keep showing you deary), gradualism is a canard. That you conveniently gloss over this fact doesn't change it or make it go away.

Without gradualism evolution is as viable as a flying invisible pink unicorn ... without a brain.

Although I imagine you could always try to bring back Lamarckism, Telegony. Alchemy or Emication. After all, many unbiased scientists are working so very hard to resurrect the dead, and inane, theory of Spontaneous Generation (reincarnated as Abiogenesis).

As far as any supposed genetic evidence that purportedly shows common descent, drawing dogmatic conclusions based on just 0.0025% of all available genetic evidence is a grossly fallacious Dicto Simpliciter. It's poor reasoning like this which led sooooo many scientists in the past to arrogantly proclaim canards as truth.

Think Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory and Phrenology.

Just another case of the blind leading the blind ...

Well your attempt to lead the blind, being blind. Partially right.

Oh gosh, we haven't had a copy-paste recycling of this since 8 March... are you on a 10 week cycle, Max?
Mind you, extracts have shown up periodically during that interval... filler, i suppose

Of course, that does explain the disconnect between my post and your reply... the constraints of scheduling, i take it?

@Janine

Argumentum ad lapidem. Your argument's been gutted for, without gradualism macroevolution, is a pipe dream.

Max, i’ve noticed that your claims to have overturned gradualism (still no letter from the Nobel Committee?) often centre around the incomplete fossil record.
Last week i dealt with your misapprehension about this, but on the assumption that you did not read it, I will repeat salient parts of my earlier comment:
...fossilisation is staggeringly rare. What you are asking for ... is something that we would not (repeat: not) expect to happen given the physical realities of our planet. In fact, a complete and unbroken record would be indicative of a hoax!
What we do see, from older strata towards more recent strata, is a steady change towards 'modern' forms. What we never see is a 'modern' rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. 
...If a bloodhound follows your scent for 5 kilometres and finally tracks you down to where you are, that hound has not detected your scent on every millimetre of ground over which it followed you, but it still finds you... and it would be just as effective if it started from where you are and followed the scent back to where you were. You could try telling the judge that the bloodhound did not find your scent on every millimetre of the five kilometres, and that not every available scent molecule entered the dog's nose... you could try.
On 5 March and again last week: “The fossil record, which is supposed to show a series of infinitesimally gradual changes from one being to another over the course of millions of years…"
No, it’s not supposed to show that.
From last week: "...we should have millions upon millions of examples of chimerical plants and animals. The fact that these are notably lacking is clear evidence that gradualism - and macroevolution by extension - are canards."
No, we shouldn’t have those examples, and no, it isn’t any sort of evidence.

Steady change, you say?

“Instead of finding the gradual [steady] unfolding of life,” say evolutionary paleontologists like David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual [steady] change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)"

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after [chimerical]. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and ** no transitional forms ** were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” (The Guardian Weekly)

Steady change as in today's rabbits are not found before their ancestors. Not ever. Not now and again. Not even once.
Not steady as in consistent and uniform measurements of time between events... expecting such a nonsense is often the cousin of the assumption that evolution is teleological. You seem to have been making the first mistake, Max, but i maintain hope that you have not been making the second mistake.
Your quotes (recycled from last week, although i note that you wisely omitted Loren Eisley and Henry Gee from this version), consist of:
1. something Davis Raup said in 1979 (Gosh, has it really been 34 years!?)
2. a snippet from a pop-science book
3. a cutting from a newspaper somewhere

@Janine

I. I'm gonna need more evidence that "rabbits are not found before their ancestors" other than your "because I said so."

II. It's been 34 years since Gradualism has been debunked and you're still preaching Gradualism? What gives?

That's it? i spend the time to address your questions and all you have to say is;
(i) you're too lazy to do your own research
(ii) a 34-year-old remark (which, if you read it in light of what i wrote, gives you no comfort, Max) totally dissipates the tidal surge of evidence available to you were it not for (i)

@Janine,

(1) If you don't know, it's ok, to admit you don't know. Nothing wrong with that at all :)

(2) No need to be so dramatic. The most convincing evidence for macroevolution could have been the vast fossil record but it proves the theory of Gradualism is false. Everything else is just noise.

That i don't know what, max? What evidence you're going to need, or whether or not something has never happened? Sound ridiculous? Sound the same way to me, too.
Dramatic?
So, another statement that the fossil record falsifies 'Gradualism'. In what way this time, Max?

I kindly refer you to my previous rejoinders for your answers.

Another non-answer. Stick a fork in it. We are done.

Max - All we ever get are your previous rejoinders

Actually, it's worst than you describe 7 for these reject any and all evidence for God's existence and, to make matters worse, they cling to a belief for which they have no evidence.

In this way they're mindset is no different than the radical Islamists' or any other fanatic.

Lack of evidence does that to an argument. You are right 7, since you will not open your eyes, we are always at an impasse. Max will continue to regurgitate from the watchtower or whatever suits his fancy, proving nothing, and providing a lot of diarrhea to sift through in the process about his flavor of religion. Funny how he brings up another 'abrahamic' religion and ridicules it, as if Athiests are now Islamic in his pitiful theory, despite the fact that they have the same unprovable hurdle to overcome.

No kidding.

@7

The fact that certain glazed jelly doughnut filled ones don't even possess a basic grasp of language comprehension doesn't help either :)

"belief for which they have no evidence"... speaking of that sort of thing, Max, you were about to debunk, gut, and generally destroy 'gradualism', weren't you?
Or are we to be left with a request to read whatever you've copy-pasted in the past?

@Janine

I kindly invite you to review my previous rejoinders and present evidence which rebuts the results of the research and discoveries I've shared debunking Gradualism.

I am sure in your mind jelly donuts are linked with gradualism or something but there is no connection. QED you fail again max. With all these failures, shouldn't you quit while you are way behind? You are showing your true colors max as a fanatical idiot with no life.

The problem for you seems to be, Max, that:
(i) that's exactly what i was about
(ii) you didn't offer any

@7

ROFLOL!! Too funny!! :D :D :D

That was funny. Stupid and moronic, but funny.

So, Max, back to how you're (once again) claiming to have debunked gradualism. The last time you claimed this, you came up with nothing. Surely you're not just pretending that your sorry hoax never happened?
As others have pointed out to you , Max, constant repetition of an untruth leaves you with... an untruth (no matter how often you scrunch up your eyes and make a wish, or tap the heels of your shoes together).

@Janine

You give me too much credit. As I've already shared, Raup, Jones, Eldridge and many, many other scientists from a host of different fields debunked Gradualism a long, long time ago.

Well, failed to debunk it is the real answer. Denial is not really a good summation.

@Lee

You’re still a spineless degenerate who gets his jollies violently battering women. You have no morals and yet you want to judge the morals of others? You should be locked up, you pig.

Yes, Max, i give you too much credit. i've already dealt with the quotes you mentioned as part of your vague mumble about nothing much. If you wish to be taken in any way seriously, it really is time for you to offer some actual evidence for your sweeping claims about gradualism.

@Janine

I. You avoided them, you didn't deal with them. That seems to be your modus operandi when dealing with uncomfortable truths. Why is that?

II. What makes your comment even more droll is the fact that most scientists are theists, not atheist. This being the case, maybe you should spend some time investigating what it is they've figured out that you haven't.

Another non-answer. So much for proof of his claims.

I. Two untruths (and the usual attempt to beg the question)
II. like any Maxism, this has nothing to do with the topic to hand, appears for no particular reason, sits there like a vagrant (no visible means of support)... and then you try to sound like there's some deep meaning to your decoy.
Max, you have made claims that gradualism has been debunked.
You have been asked for evidence.
You have offered none.
Your audience is drifting away, Max, muttering about charlatans and snake-oil merchants.

@Janine

Asked and answered yesterday. Feel free to go back and fully assimilate the scientific research I've referenced ... or not :)

@Janine

Oh, as far as my audience is concerned, you guys have helped me grow it faster than I could have ever imagined doing it on my own. Thanks!

<>

Oh, you referenced scientific research? i must have missed that bit... and to what end did you reference it, Max? Point me at it (or just copy-paste it... i know how much you like doing that).
Don't you mean 'asked and evaded', Max Or 'asked and ignored'?

I never saw any scientific research from max. He did claimed there to be some but none ever came forth.

@Janine

Remember Raup, Jones, Eldridge and the others I've referred you to? I kindly invite you to assimilate the scientific research they've done debunking Gradualism.

So this is published scientific research, Max? i have a reasonable familiarity with the research literature, yet i cannot recall anything like that... how mysterious! How confusing that such evidence would certainly merit a Nobel Prize, and yet one would think that, well, that it didn't exist!
Still, i assume you'll have no problem referencing this work. Just point me at the references, Max... i have access to a large body of scientific journals and proceedings

@Janine

Do your own homework :)

Max is a complete write off janine.

The problem for you, Max, and the reason for your goldfish imitation, is that i did do my homework.

@Janine

Then, surprise, surprise, you've succumbed to ignorantia invincibilis.

What else would you call clinging fanatically to a false belief discredited decades ago? Do you believe the Earth is flat and that it revolves around the sun too? :)

Now that's risible, lol! :D

And to enhance the goldfish imitation... round and round in circles.

A good summation of religion:

"What else would you call clinging fanatically to a false belief discredited decades ago? Do you believe the Earth is flat and that it revolves around the sun too? :) "

Fantastic. Thanks max, the first thing you have said (backwards however) that made sense in all the time I have known of you.

46 More Responses

One major flaw in your origional post here, as regards this, is your total lie, that the bible is an unchanged document. You do realise that the book you read, called the bible, does not say that which you believe it says?: I am engaged to a man, who is a theologian. I can't particularly remember the vastly mind boring details of every word within the book, but I do recall that there are so many descrepancies between differnt versions, even if you are reading the actual* bibles (the latin and greek language versions, not the bastardised 'English versions), as to make the meaning, of many sentances, and indeed, therefore verses and 'books', entirely differnt, depending on which version you are reading. There is, (one I do recall), for example, a huge variation in the way in which the first sentence of the first paragraph of the book of Genisis can be read, translated, or interpurited. With such a huge 'chinese whisper' effect, down the years (I have not even mentioned all the obvious mistakes in transcription which are known of, and which still get repeated in various moden days versions of the books in English), how much of these badly translated, poorly trnscribed, often much 'filled in', sometimes abscent, writings can we trust? They are just words.

And in many cases, not very good ones.

@Eusarian

Were you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts - in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine - available today in museums the world over? In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible's. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it's unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts. As such, any fears of tampering or errata are unwarranted.

As far as the genuine Bible canon is concerned, the "Protestant" canon agrees more with the very first Bible, The Tanakh, than with the Catholic and Orthodox canons. This is significant because The Tanakh is decidedly older than the Catholic and Orthodox canons making these illegitimate adulterations of the Bible.

...and the Koran, just had a different editor, as did the Torah, etc. It was just what they chose in 325 CE to include. Then the translations, mistranslations, next thing you know we have to include other religious stories like virgin birthing from Mithra, and various Sumerian writings about a 'noah' etc etc and whatever we need to include to pacify the masses at that time.Religion is a tool designed to control the ignorant. Doing a good job on max.

Yes, the ignorant such as these unbelievable ignorant men -

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Oh and, btw, did you know that, according to a recent Pew survey, 51% of scientists abjure the philosophy of Atheism? (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx) Go figure! :)

No Max, we didn't know that, because the last time you offered this recycled claim, Ovy118 pointed out to you (6 days ago) that it's incorrect (and i'm being kind in that describing it as such). Nevertheless, here it is again... your willingness to waste people's time is quite astonishing!

@Janine

Was I addressing you?

I realize you are outwitted by a chair max but janine is being kind to you.

Assuming two options, and having to guess, i'm going to go with 'yes, you were addressing me'

@Janine

No, I wasn't addressing you but Eusarian.

Had I been addressing you I would have included your name in my rejoinder.

Next time, wait your turn.

You are quite pompous maxxy. My my my.

7 More Responses

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -Steve Eley

"Atheism leaves a man to his sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to repudiation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue...but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." -Sir Francis Bacon

"The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty." -Mikhail Bakunin

"There's no way to prove that there is no God. You just have to take it on faith." -Woody Allen

"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." -Stendhal (1783-1842)

"If you tell a child 'God made the world' he will usually ask 'Then who made God?' If we reply, as the catechism states, 'No one made God. He always was,' then why couldn't we just say that about the world in the first place." -Marian Noel Sherman (1892-1975)

"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1931)

"When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me." -Emo Phillips

“Science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years.” -John Burroughs

“The very concept of sin comes from the Bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?” -Dan Barker

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” -John Adams

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins

EXACTLY

“If your right eye offends you, pluck it out. If your right arm offends you, cut it off. And if reason offends you, become a Catholic”-Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), German-Jewish Poet

“[Religion is] an attempt to find an out where there is no door.” -Albert Einstein

“If there was a God, I’d still have both nuts.” -Lance Armstrong

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."-Thomas Jefferson

"What happens when we're dead? The irony is that all our questions wil be answered after we die. We spend our whole life trying to figure out the truth and the only way we'll find out what it is, is to get hit by a bus. And the only comfort that religion offers is that God is driving that bus." - John Ryman

Just one. Just have your invisible unicorn come see me during office hours.

Interesting viewpoint there. You wish me to dominate your skydaddy and discipline him? You are a strange person indeed. I guess your childish view is mildly amusing, kind of like when a child farts in the bathtub and giggles.

Or your invisible friend, or the FSM, or whatever invisible, unprovable, creature you wish to subject to your interpretation of 'god'.

The bible sure is funny, I will give you that.

Thankfully.

Yes Thomas Jefferson was a much more valuable person as a real individual than a character in a story.

777
Miracles? You mean like sticking your head and a stone in a hat and coming up with the Book of Mormon???????

Fancy underwear and gold bars.

Not sure what it is you are 'doing too'

6 More Responses

The Case For The Necessary Existence Of God

http://bit.ly/1197U6R

I got it!.....I got it!............Max is not a real person! Max is a computer program written and let loose by a consortium including the Jehovah's Witness's and various other fundamentalist christian groups. The program's task is to parse key words from various atheist posts, then search the web sites of "The Watchtower" first, and then similar sites for text and paste it back to the forums. The code is poorly written, which explains the bewildering disconnect often seen between the post queried and the response posted by "MAX" (Messed-up Android Christian). It's a conspiracy!!

I think you are right? The consensus among myself and my friends was that he was an atheist trying to turn undecided people into an atheist or a writer for The Onion.

I think you may have a better handle on this than I.

Brilliant!

Awesome

PLEASE LEAVE MAXI ALONE! I HAVE FOUND THE TRUTH!

If you wonder why Maxi won't respond to your questions directly, it is because he is on a mission from god (que in dark sunglasses, fedora, undertaker suits and Blues Brother theme) and his time is too valuable to waste with you and your sophist arguments.

Still I, as a newly converted disciple and freshly lobotomized, convert to Maxi's worldview and faith have magnanimously decided to tell take up his err... cross and continue to witness to you.

First some ground rules:

1) You are an atheist and thus "cannot fully understand" the will of god, his bible and its intricacies. So you must take Maxi's or anyone that knows the one true god's view (like me) on these things. Don't panic we are here to help!

1a) STOP pointing out the flip flops when we (the chosen) say the bible is VERY clear and the direct word of god not to be parsed, except when it contradicts us, then the bible is a mysterious and intricate series of parables, symbolism. We know which one it is via divine guidance. Duh!

2) Leave the bible to us and we will tell you what it says. As one of the (un)chosen you atheist are simply reading the wrong version of the "ultimate and unadulterated word of god"... We chosen have had the blessing of a deeper understanding that allows us to tell what the speaker/writer/committee was thinking. Once you are washed "in his blood" you will start to see "special versions" of the bible with footnotes which, by the miracle of divine guidance, are also infallible. I know you are maybe wondering, which style guide god prefers in his footnotes (the MIA or the Chicago style guide) but these too are the mysteries of our lord forever out of the reach of the mass murdering, pedophilloic atheist like yourself.

3) We have divine logic which you must take on faith until you convert to our view (which normally happens when you get old or are diagnosed with a terminal disease. That is fine with us, you young people don't have a lot of money and your kids cry in church!). So please agree you will not point out basic inconsistencies with my logic, you must accept that they are not there. Trust me I know better since everyone that believes in god is smarter than you. This is why we are going to heaven and you are not!

4) Although I will insult you and call you, in the most round about ways, truly vile things, please know that I say this with ONLY love in my heart for you. You are my brother or sister and not the terrible person that picks their nose, leaves the cap off the toothpaste, crosses against the light, talks on your cellphone at Starbucks and gets offended when I give you a scripture card instead of a tip... Uhhhh excuse me. OK, I am new at this unconditional love thing, but even if I don't love. Jesus does love you, this I know for the bible tells me so! :)

I hope I have cleared this up for you.

So now close your brains and open your hearts and for god's sake REPENT before it is too late!

Finally, once my eloquent and irrefutable ministry has helped you see the one true way, I would ask you to tithe to me a small amount (say 15% of what you make or own) to my new ministry. Remember the bible says to tithe. :) I am thinking about calling it something catchy like:

"The Church of the Previously Condemned Mass Murdering and Pedophilloic Atheists that have NOW Turned Off their Brains found God." Trust me (you have to since I am a man of god) It sounds better in Latin.

Regardless, please send me 15% of everything you have through my PayPal at BrotherJimTheReformed@IamSmarterandBetterthanyou.com so I can continue my good works.

Bless you,

Jim
---------------------
PS. Please don't actually send money to that address. I know only the "saved" would be gullible enough to do this but I do not want to me accused of raising funds for a religion at least until I have all of my 503c paperwork filed and I have recruited some celebrities to my church. :)

A Suggestion Before Engaging Maxi in. Conversation:

I recommend BEFORE you get into a conversation with Maxi you read through some threads of his here and other places.

If you feel he will provide an intellectually honest conversation, not put words in your mouth, answers questions forthrightly, then engage. If you do not then maybe find another theist to trade ideas with.

Maxi seems to think atheist experience groups are his pad.

Maxi once again brings out a bunch of "bad" people to show how dangerous us atheist are. What is his point? That only atheists commit these acts? That the world should round up atheists and burn them at the stake to save the world? Why not? Some theists kill you for not being the right type of theist.

Using some Maxian logic I can say:

1) Atheists do bad things and are evil (please ignore the bad and evil subjectivity just find some things here the majority of the world considers bad and evil)

2) Jim is an atheist

3) Jim is a bad and evil person (killer is what he calls me)

QED.

Notice the supposition that the reason why all of these people did bad things was caused by the fact that they are atheists?

Don't get me started on the theists that do bad things like say Hitler since Maxi will point out that they are the "wrong kind" of theist or were (gasp) closet atheists.

We really need to tell Maxi to troll elsewhere. He is intellectually dishonest, won't answer questions he does not like (they are magically in another thread) and calls people like us a danger.

@Killer Jim

Tell me, what does the term "collateral damage" mean?

Another non-answer

And an attack, you forgot to mention when he loses the argument he attacks people like a true xtain.

Master Lee,

I agree that Maxi likes to attack and call people and whole segments of the population names, but attack may be too strong. It is more like a yapping Chihuahua.

My only worry is if Maxi thinks that god is whispering in his ear to do something about those atheists before they too head the way of mass murders or serial killers and we know all of them are atheists.

--------------
Why else would Maxi say, "Yes, live and let live, not like Danton, Lenin, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito, Milosevic, Bonaparte, Mussolini and all the other oppressive, sadistic, mass murdering atheists who, collectively, butchered ***hundreds of millions*** of innocent men, women and children.

Can you feel why Gnostic Atheism engenders such terror in the hearts and minds of others?"
---------------
So applying the school of "Maxium" logic:

1) All mass murders are sadistic atheists (corralary anyone that accepts god has this auto objective moral compas and cannot be a mass murderer)

2) God is a mass murderer of many innocient women and children many many times over

3) Therefore GOD IS AN ATHEIST

QED

Who would have guessed it :)

@Killer Jim

I. You wonder why I address you as "Killer Jim", so answer, what does the term "collateral damage" mean?

II. Prove God has killed innocents.

Trick question. To prove god killed innocents one would have to assume that a god exists - and it doesn't.

Maxi is losing it. He cannot even tell when I am using Maxium logic.

God did not kill anyone since he/it does not exist. Thank god he is in the clear on this one. Also god pretty much is not an atheist or anything else for that matter.

@Killer Jim

Toooo late! Trap's already sprung. You pontificated earlier, "God is a mass murderer of many innocient women and children many many times over."

All I'm asking is that you prove your accusation with evidence. That, or retract it. The choice is yours.

Wow, that takes me back! The last time i heard anything like that i was maybe 9 or 10 years old... the sort of puerile stuff we used to toss around at playtime... one of the little pleasures we give up when we become mature adults, i suppose

Added to which, well, not much of a trap... Jim was actually detailing the conclusions that derive from what he called the school of "Maxium" logic... he was following a line of thought that originated in one of your statements. Why do you characterise this as 'pontificating', Max?

Thankfully someone was able to explain it to you Maxi. Thank you newjainev2. Hopefully Maxi sees that if you start with a false supposition then all that follows is fallacious. Or maybe he does not.

8 More Responses

Sounds like you have a lot of soul searching to do if you can spend this amount of time arguing this on EP.... Time to look within, you don't need prove or disprove anything to anyone..spend this time and effort on something worthwhile.

Yes, live and let live, not like Danton, Lenin, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito, Milosevic, Bonaparte, Mussolini and all the other oppressive, sadistic, mass murdering atheists who, collectively, butchered ***hundreds of millions*** of innocent men, women and children.

Can you feel why Gnostic Atheism engenders such terror in the hearts and minds of others?

For those just joining us... this is pretty much a standard copy-paste from Max. There's a lengthy thread below resulting from the last time he popped this up, so rather than waste your time on this rehash, you might like to just use 'Find' and work through the resultant discussion

Without god to hold people in check they become mass murderers. So any good theists that were also mass murderers?

Quick let's lock up the atheists! But first we need a religious test! We need to ensure these futures as murders do not hold office, teach kids, or vote.

Lets make all atheists register and bring back the Scarlet A!

Is this guy a hoot or what. Stay of those meds.

Problem is, most of his list are christian and some catholics. Maxxy likes to paint them as Athiests when they actually aren't because to admit they were does not fit into his agenda.

@Killer Jim

What else would you call the mass murder of innocent babies occurring the world over at the hands of atheists?

I am more concerned of the slaughter of innocents under the guise of a 'god' See: Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, etc.

@Lee

I. I too fear all those who worship Satan and act at his behest.

II. Since we're on the subject, and especially as a father, the ever-growing adherence to atheism contributing to the rise in homosexual pedophiles is also very alarming.

Yes, catholic pedophiles are on the rise.

@Lee

Given how depraved you are I wouldn't be shocked at all if you turned out to be a ********* too.

Actually, you are much more depraved than anyone I know. (And I know a lot of people) Your libel is noted max. Good xtain.

7 More Responses

This is an inappropriate place for your story and is against the rules of EP. Not cool

A note to group members: Max has informed me that any comments about religion are also characterisations of Max.
Please act accordingly.

A further note to group members: Max has also informed me that he is not a primate, from which i take it that he is the sole member of a new order.
Please amend your biology databases accordingly

@Janine

Evolution! Fantastic!! I love debunking the delusion of Evolution (Hey!! That rhymes!)

As far as the fraudulent Phylogeny of life -


In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had ** many origins **. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step! Thus, Genesis 1:21 is manifestly affirmed.

You wish to debunk Evolution Theory? Please begin...
(is this another starter for 10, Max? Is it designed to divert attention from your 'urban landscape' metaphor that we're discussing elsewhere)

Nope, different thread, different discussion.

Before I continue just need to know if you're good with contemporary researcher's findings that the purported Tree of Life has no basis in reality. If you are, I'll continue building my case.

Continue? i was waiting for you to begin.
You're referring to Eric Bapteste's comments? No, surely not...

I have concluded that max has no life and is spewing on others to drag him into his self made pergatory. He has no knowledge of what debate is.

And? You’re still a cowardly degenerate who gets his jollies violently battering women. You have no morals and yet you want to judge the morals of others? You should be locked up, sicko.

Max, when i suggested that you were holding your hands over your ears and shouting "not listening" in order to avoid considering comments i made elsewhere, your response was "The claws come out and the vitriol begins to spew".
To be frank, Max, i thought that to be a little unkind, but now i see this taunt posted all through the comments here and, well, obviously it could have been much worse.
When you decide that i should be subjected to the same vitriol, Max, just let me know and, in the interests of veracity, i'll give you some stones to cast

@Janine

False analogy since I've (very patiently, mind you) listened to everything you had to say. Therefore your comment was just obnoxious.

On the other hand, you're defending a sadistic misogynist. Seriously?

I'm speechless ...

@Janine

Wait!! You two aren't together, are you?

@Janine

Forgot to add, my biting comment served to caution you against confusing meekness with weakness.

Like Christ Jesus before me, I too can be a fierce lion when necessary. (John 2:13-17)

You feel that depicting you as holding your hands over your ears to avoid listening is obnoxious? This is just a touch delicate, Max.
Where, in what i wrote above, is a defence of Master Lee?
Point out to me the part where i defend him.
This is what brings me to suggest that you're not listening, Max - so often you respond to things i haven't said, and fail to respond to what i actually did say.
i said that i thought your comment to be a little unkind... did you feel it was 'biting'? Did you intend it to be cautionary? Both those were lost on me. Maybe i'm less delicate than you.

Oh, while i'm here... Master Lee and i are not together. i could walk past him in the street and have no idea who he was... not surprising, given that we seem to be in different countries and have never met.
Now, whenever you can find the time, whenever you're ready, you should feel free to debunk whatever it was you were going to debunk

max depicts all who are in opposition to his deluded mind as being in collusion. Therefore all Atheists are bound (lumped) together and e throws some of his fellow xtains under the same bus by labeling them Athiests.

Why are you so afraid max? you label everything and ridicule all you do not understand. you assume, especially in my case, and attack as it it has some profound meaning.

I pity you max. You should cast off your religious blinders and live.

@Janine

What are you talking about? I did it yesterday.

Did you? Sorry, i must have not seen it for some reason. Um, it's not that stuff you posted under 'fraudulent phylogeny of life' though, is it?

Oh, so you did read it.

Yes... the first tranche of my reply is posted above in a new thread

15 More Responses

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
- C. S. Lewis

Haha! I see an Attention *****!
I read the first few lines..
'You accept Jesus Christ was divine, I mean his existence is proof!'
My existence is PROOF I'm Batman!
Hey, look, I'm flipping off Jesus Christ! Woo!

Atheist group. Atheist Story.
If you post anything religious, that makes you a Quality tested, Performance verified, A-grade, top of the line, first class, *drum roll* DUMBASS of the highest degree, as far as your heavenly imaginary friend!

Haha! I see an Attention *****!
I read the first few lines..
'You accept Jesus Christ was divine, I mean his existence is proof!'
My existence is PROOF I'm Batman!
Hey, look, I'm flipping off Jesus Christ! Woo!

Atheist group. Atheist Story.
If you post anything religious, that makes you a Quality tested, Performance verified, A-grade, top of the line, first class, *drum roll* DUMBASS of the highest degree, as far as your heavenly imaginary friend!

Maxi never actually answers the question of:

1. If existence was created by god, what is the proof that it is what he says is god and not some 12 year old alien or any other god (there are plenty to choose from)

2. Where is the basis for the audacious claim that everything exists for a reason or has been created for a purpose? This is a bald supposition. It is just as possible that life, the universe and everything has no purpose. Even the "purpose" to propagate our genetic material is the result of ingrained traits of survival of the genetic material (species) came about since that is clearly a reinforcing trait.

3. Why is it always Maxi says it is either a) an omnipotent designer or b) random chance? How about trial and error, natural selection, application of reason that was developed over time since the ability to think has been a positive trait that is reinforced over time or do you ignore the basis of natural reinforcement as seen in animal husbandry?

3a. By the way Maxi why is this ALSO not the basis of the "objective moral code" that was given to us by a benevolent creator?

Of course he will not answer these questions. If you read through you will see he never does.

You will also notice that he makes a supposition, calls it a fact, provides a binary rationale (one his position and the other ludicrous) and finally claims victory.

He won't touch these third rails of his arguments. I advise that you move on to more intellectually honest theist.

Maxi is back posting but won't touch these questions. Therefore he has no answer.

"QED." As Maxi would say.

maxx has lost. He has now taken to attacking me on every thread. I pity his small mind.

@Killer Jim

What proof is there that God is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being?
Answer: http://bit.ly/SSsy8x

Of all the gods professed to exist, who is the true God and how can we know for certain?
Answer: http://bit.ly/14Ckccl

What reasons do we have to believe everything exists for a purpose?
Answer: http://bit.ly/15WYDYz


Which is a more plausible explanation for the order we see in our world and the universe?
Answer: http://bit.ly/10D5thf

Why are “trial and error, natural selection, application of reason that was developed over time since the ability to think has been a positive trait that is reinforced over time” “not the basis of the "objective moral code" that was given to us by a benevolent creator?”

Answer: How can any subjective processes grant us anything objective?

So a vote from the EPrs.

Do you consider these answers to the questions I posed?

Also why am I now a killer and is that good or bad? :)

@Killer Jim

Surely you can speak for yourself, no?

So jim if you are a killer, does that make max a mass murderer for the sake of his 'god'?

Doesn't change the fact that you’re still a cowardly degenerate who gets his jollies violently battering women. You have no morals and yet you want to judge the morals of others? You should be locked up, sicko.

You are a persistent idiot. I will give you points for cut/paste stamina. It is to bad you are completely incorrect. Facts not in evidence maxxi, try again.

5 More Responses

Let’s see if a visual aid can help us in our dialogue: http://www.passport2freedom.org/favela/ (Scroll down and view image 7/8)

As you can see, these are the shantytowns of São Paulo Brazil. Because these were thrown together without the aid of a universal building code or a city plan, they’re ‘disorganized, without numbered streets, sanitation networks, electricity, phone service or plumbing.’

Contrast these with the sturdy, well built apartment buildings in the background. Built in strict adherence to building codes, they’re stronger, safer, cleaner, more habitable places to live.

The shantytowns are a perfect metaphor for the kind of global society the philosophy of relativistic morality has given us. Think I’m exaggerating? Turn on the news and tell me if all the war, violence, abuse, strife, discord, animosity, hatred, bigotry, inequality, injustice, abject poverty, disease and depravity you hear about on a daily basis feels like a shantytown life or not.

On the other hand, those of us who let ourselves be guided by the objective moral values and duties handed to us by our loving Creator benefit from a more harmonious society, akin to a city built with the aid of universal building codes.

With me so far?

However it's through Gravity, Dark Mass, and Dark Energy in which we can explain the structures that appear in our universe.

Within our Galaxies the distrubtion of stars is not orderly however the bigger picture does seem to have an order to it from our perspective as pattern seeking creatures. Just as we look into the Atom and see Structure but once we hit the Quantum Level we see more choas just as we May or May not find Choas outside of our obserable universe.

Although we do have all those problems globally they are on the decline in respect to the effort of time. We are imposing a positive order on the world without God's help (although his followers do have an influence in both the positive and negitive)

On the other hand to be guiding by a single being is a form of order and one that I cannot abide by since it would be a belovant monarchy at best and a Totaliarian Dictatorship at worst neither match my personal senibilities as a lover of the Democratic Process that governs most of the great nations of our world.

We are seeing these "building codes" and trying to explain them but that does not mean they were dictated from on high or just a process in which we are trying to explain that happened without an supernatural influence that still has yet to be proven with even any philsophical certainity in relation to reality as we see it.

New York, Houston, and San Franciso all have building codes all of which is determined though a democratic process instead of that of an executive. Cities do not just pop up over night and metropoli such as those we have spoke to do either. They "evolve" out of smaller groupings that merge more like bacteria in a petri dish. Sure they are build by the inhabitants who either do or wish to live there but essentally they're growth pattern is not unlike a more naturalistic non-determined pattern. After all the builders of 1770's New York could not imagine 2013's

@Jondoen

It appears you missed the thrust of my rejoinder.

Here, let me ask you, were the building codes for all the great urbs you mention the result of blind chance or thought and deliberation?

or some other impetus, Max... possible causes are not limited to those that you chose to mention

@Janine

Not a problem. Detail this other impetus along with your evidence for its applicability in this scenario. I'm all ears.

Gradual progression... additional structures being added and influenced by what already exists and the resources available for their erection.

With your choices, Max, there are either no rules and influences on the a city's emergence, or that city's emergence is prescribed after thought and deliberation, and is predictable before it begins, and is compelled towards some sort of 'final state'.
My city (yours too, i assume) has planning officers, and these much-admired bureaucrats must authorise all new structures in light of what already exists. perhaps i should repeat: in light of what already exists. Ten years later, new structures will be evaluated in light of what already exists, and that will now include the structure that was added ten years earlier... and added without any consideration of how it would influence decisions ten years down the track.
Structures which fail this ad hoc approval process are either torn down (think of it as death), or not built at all (so we'll never see them).

@Janine

As someone whose worked in the construction industry for many, many years, I can tell you that no project or residential community I've ever worked on has ever been the result of blind chance.

Do you have an example of some city or residential community that gradually arose completely bereft of thought and deliberation?

Where, in what i wrote, do you find blind chance? Please point it out to me, Max.

Maxi always chooses both sides of the argument. His reason and one he chooses (for you) made to support his supposition. You are just a backdrop not a participant in a real discourse. It is a very very old ploy most freshman forensics participants get past in their first two or three debates.

Yes Sir, it's the lack of real engagement that i found so disappointing and unethical

@Janine

My apologies, was the adaptation you were illustrating the denouement of an intelligent agent?

Although City Growth is planned it doesn't have this "Master Blueprint" in which it follows from begining to end. It changes moves and evolves with time. For instance New York started as a small town on Manhattan - sure when it started by the Dutch it was a small but buslting town that grew quickly but even they didn't think it'd breach the Island.

However it did ever so slowly growing out into the metropolus of today. And change occurs by building in new areas. Tearing down old ones / renovating. etc. etc. etc. Although it looks like and does follow a modern rules New York clearly is an old Roman Style city scape that has slowly evolved into a modern metropolus verse San Franciso and Houston are built a good deal differently than NYC.

Of course I doubt master plans for cities can account for something like 9/11/01 those towers were meant to be there forever but now we have two fountains on their old foundations and a few new building being built in it's place.

Hell even looking between the styles of cities you can see a slow evolution from the European Cites of the Ancient times (London, Rome, Athens) evolving into slight more modern cities (Florence, Berlin, Paris) and then hopping across the Atlantic to NYC and out West to Houston, Detroit, Chiago, LA, San Fran then again out to the hyper modern cities of Bejing.

Sure each Ancient City has it's old roads and quirks in the "Old City" Sections like Time Square in NYC, the Forbidden City in Bejing, etc. etc. etc. Clearly though you can see that althought not quite chance it's not quite planned fully either.

@Jondoen

Sure, but what we don't see is a city that's transformed into a quasar or a nebula. A city, no matter how much it changes will always be a city.

Same with nature.

No, Max, what i have written above isn't a denouement of anything (yet).
So, again: Where, in what i wrote, do you find blind chance?

Hello, jondoen. Yes, i'm finding the 'urban landscape' metaphor (that Max pointed out) to be quite useful... it's taking a while to lead Max through the process, but we'll get there

@Janine

Then if it's not the denouement of any agent the only possibility left is some blind, random force.


Q. E. D.

Give me to develop my argument, Max... gosh, cutting straight to the denouement just prohibits the development that makes the denouement worthwhile.
It's not the denouement of an intelligent agent (why would it be?), or of any agent, because, as i said, it's not a denouement (yet)

@Janine

Apologies! Apologies! Please, by all means, continue :)

Or not ... lol :)

Oh, you're running my schedule now, are you, Max? Will you allow for sleep and a social life, or should i just snooze in front of the screen?

No worries, Janine. Stall all you want :)

So, not answering according to your schedule is 'stalling'? Gosh, Max, you really do like to play fast and loose with language, don't you? Do i take it from this that you are, in fact, running my schedule? It's just on quarter past three on Tuesday afternoon here... i need to pick up some shoes that i had mended, and drop by the supermarket for groceries... should i do that before or after 4 o'clock, Max? i have a guest arriving around 6 for dinner... is that OK, or should i ring him and ask him to check with you as to which evening would be best? Gosh, it's terrible how all these real-life annoyances just keep cluttering up my life, especially when they get in the way of reading your copy-pastes.
Tell me, Max... when i'm awake in the evening and am expecting an answer from you, is it OK if i ring you, even if it's the early hours of the morning wherever you are, and let you know that i'm waiting? That way i'll be assured that you're not stalling

Noooo, answering with an unending series of ignoratio elenchis is stalling :)

Which, of course, isn't what i do, as i'm sure you agree. You do agree with that, don't you, Max? Otherwise you'd be able to demonstrate the series, and that the series is unending, and then demonstrate that it was used to effect stalling, and not for some other purpose.
You didn't answer my other question, Max... should i take it that you are now running my schedule?

22 More Responses

Sampling of Universal Constants

Planck constant
Hubble constant
Gravitational constant
Luminal speed in a vacuum
von Kitzing constant
Fermi coupling constant
Fine-structure constant
Rydberg constant
Avogadro constant
Boltzman constant
atomic mass constant
Faraday constant
Loschmidt constant
Sackur-Tetrode constant
Fine-Structure Constant (α)
Cosmological Constant (Λ)
Tau (Τ)
Euler’s number (e)
π
Fibonacci sequence
Golden Ratio (φ)
Euler’s Identity


Moreover, science tells us that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life permitting ones. Concordantly,

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or deliberate design.
2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to deliberate design.

1 - Agreeable
2 - Facts not in Evidence; although the argument for fine-tuning is a good one we still have the "Not sure why this is we don't quite know yet" arguement
3 - counterpoint 2 invalidates point 3

Given the possibility to the Multiverse theory (which I use the small T because it's conjecture in the scientific community and data does not yet point to one way or another) then the fact we happen to be in a Habitable Universe. There might be more Habitable Universes and in the case of our Universe more habitable planets possibily in both cases with creatures not unlike ourselves arguing not unsimular points.

I. Are matter and energy the denouement of the laws that govern them or did the laws of the universe result from matter and energy?

II. Order is not the issue, it's the conformity to an independently given pattern plus high improbability. It's what makes a distinct signal unmistakable from random white noise. This is the dead giveaway of design.

This is why trying to use "poof" (chance) to explain the absurdly small compound probability of independent events giving us a life sustaining universe is just naked, irrational sophism.

Moreover, nothing in the universe exists out of the necessity of it’s own nature for, if that were the case, the universe would have always existed instead of only coming into existence 13.70 billion years ago (BVG Theorem).

Having eliminated all other possibilities and given your affirmation of (1), the only plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our life permitting universe is (3).

III. As I’m sure you’re well aware, a contracting universe won't generate the proper “bounce” characteristics as it transitions from a contraction to an expansion. Baum-Frampton is a non-starter because they haven’t figured out how to have zero average growth along geodesics given the asymmetry in the expansion and contraction phase of their model. More importantly, they only considered a subset of the full reality they propose.

The Aguirre-Gratton model tries to avoid this problem entirely by reversing the arrow of time at the boundary. But if you do this, then the mirror universe on the other side of the BVG boundary in no sense represents a past out of which our current universe evolved. Thus our universe would begin-to-exist.

Withal, the Aguirre-Gratton model is not even suggested by its authors to be a model of our universe! Rather, they hope that it can serve as a springboard for the birth of our universe through some other physical process.

Wheeler's theory, on the other hand, not only succumbs to the problems generic to oscillating models, but insofar as it posits singularities at the termini of each cycle, it is not even a model of an oscillating universe at all, but of just a series of unrelated worlds.

Inflationary models not only face the problems of how to get the inflation started, how to get it to end without excess turbulence, and how to get it to allow galaxy formation, but more importantly they themselves require an extraordinary amount of fine-tuning prior to inflation, so that the appearance of design is not eluded.

Clearly, then, the absolute beginning of our universe remains inescapable (BVG Theorem).

I have one more universal constant: the number 1. Wait, there's one more: square root of 2. Oh, wait, all numbers are constants! Wow, an infinite number of constants, so we have an infinite number of proofs of the existence of god. Only an omnipotent god can make an infinite number of constants, so god is great! My discourse is unassailable and is not prone to succumb to the defilement of loathsome atheists, my argument is based on an infinity of substantiations, not on surmisal as is ordinarily discerned in fallacious atheistical discourse. And I challenge you to prove that I never use a long word when a more diminutive one will suffice. Prove me wrong.

Just kidding :) Seriously, we need to distinguish physical constants (which are *measured*) and mathematical constants (which are *computed*). In passing, physical constants are constant only *as far as we know*. It is an open question whether what we call physical constants can change their value - are there other parts of our universe, or other universes where those constants take on other values? We don't know.

And yes, I get mildly irritated when true believers say "oh you atheist, you think you know everything."

A little math lesson for Max: The Fibonacci sequence is not a constant, it is a family of mathematical sequences, which in its broadest sense is built on the recurrence formula A(n+2)=a*A(n+1)+b*A(n). There are as many Fibonacci sequences as there are ways to chose the first two terms and the numbers a and b.

Cheers.

@P245

hah ah ahaha, pretty funny bud! :)

And thank you for your insights.

When referencing those mathematical constants as universal constants what I was trying to communicate is that the patterns expressed in those formulas, identities and numbers can be found throughout the universe thereby pointing to an overreaching order that permeates it.

Instead of using the appellative "universal constants", how would you suggest I describe this notion?

Yes, yes, the order, the overarching order, I see it now! Look, the number 5 is EXACTLY between the numbers 3 and 7. This would be impossible without the hand of god. And, there are other examples: 1 between 0 and 2. In fact an infinity of examples. God must be infinitely powerful.

Want more? Numbers are good. I can prove it: without numbers, we could not count money, and if we could not count money, we would steal!

Therefore god is both good and omnipotent.

The bible correctly predicted that god is both good and omnipotent, therefore the bible is true.

Thank you for showing me the way. My life is so much better now. My worldview has gone from boring to exciting. I had not idea how much I was missing out on.

Thank you.

(End sarcasm)

A universe caused to exist 13.70 billion years ago by an ordered mind is less plausible than a universe from nothing by nothing for nothing? Really?

Manifestly, though, order is not the issue, it's the conformity to an independently given pattern plus high improbability. It's what makes a distinct signal unmistakable from random white noise. This is the dead giveaway of design.

This is why trying to use "poof" (chance) to explain the absurdly small compound probability of independent events giving us a life sustaining universe is just naked, irrational sophism.

Yes, yes, of course, the order is not what matters. Silly me, I should have known better than follow Max's lead when he said he was pointing out the overreaching order. What matters is not the order, at all. What matters is the PATTERN! Of course!

For example: all multiples of 5 end with 0 or 5. That kind of pattern proves god. Want more? Multiples of 2 end with and even number! Want more? If 3 is less than 4 and 4 is less than 5, then 3 is less than 5.

Max, let's team up. Next time Max says that the overreaching order in the universe proves god, which it does, let's destroy his correct argument that order proves god. Then, let's explain, convincingly but politely that it is the pattern that proves god, not the order. Although the order does prove god.

Thank you, thank you. I was blind, now I see. Now I understand why raping little girls is bad, because before now, I had no idea.

(End sarcasm)

Order is not the sole issue, it's the conformity to an independently given pattern plus high improbability. It's what makes a distinct signal unmistakable from random white noise. This is the dead giveaway of design.

This is why trying to use "poof" (chance) to explain the absurdly small compound probability of independent events giving us a life sustaining universe is just naked, irrational sophism.

Right, right, got it. It's not the pattern. It's that the pattern was INDEPENDENTLY GIVEN! Silly me. So, for example, the number pi was given. The number pi was given to be 3.1415926... When we compute the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, we get 3.1415926... Exact to an infinity of digits. The probability of that happening is 0! So the number pi was obviously given to us. Only god could have given us the number pi. Since pi is what it is to an infinity of digits, god is omnipotent.

Want more? Before there were numbers, there were no numbers. So where did the numbers come from? How do we know that 1+1=2? 1+1 could have been anything, but it is 2, one number out of an infinity of number, how improbable is that? The cause must be god.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Order is not the sole issue, it's the conformity to an independently given pattern plus high improbability. It's what makes a distinct signal unmistakable from random white noise. This is the dead giveaway of design.

Control c, control v (that's for copy paste). Nice.

For whatever reason, you guys need to read the same thing several time before you fully assimilate the knowledge I'm trying to impart.

For what ever reason, you do not assimilate the knowledge we are trying to impart in spite of us explaining in details, forward, backwards, lengthwise, and sidewise over and over again.

Such as?

My point exactly.

I can't help it. I need more evidence for your outrageous claims other than "because I said so", sorry.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!! YOU made the claim, as I said earlier, which you seem to not remember, or want to ignore. Remember?? Think hard . You posted earlier that one of my posts had a lot of " I don't" know's", as if that was a bad thing. That's right: I don't know, it is you who claims to know. You have the burden of proof. See? I explained that several times, and all I get is a " such as?". I read what you present as arguments, not convincing. Take the time to re-read the post if you wish to know why.

Beyond frustrating.

lol, Relax bud, you're gonna have a stroke, lol.

Now, by itself, the Teleological Argument for God's existence may be insufficient. That's why it's part of a much larger case for the necessary existence of God: http://bit.ly/1197U6R

16 More Responses

Here’s why the anti-theist’s view of the world is completely delusional:

(1) Everything that exists has an objective explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(A) If atheism is true, the universe has no objective explanation of its existence.
(B) If the universe has an objective explanation of its existence then atheism is false.

(2) The universe exists.
(3) The space-time universe does not exist out of the necessity of it’s own nature for it did not exist until 13.70 billion years ago.
(4) Therefore, the space-time universe exists because of an external cause.

(5) The external cause of the universe must necessarily be a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being.
(6) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being is the definition of God.
(7) Therefore, the objective explanation of the universe's existence is God.


To borrow from an illustration by Richard Taylor, "Imagine you are walking through the woods on a hike and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder where that ball came from – what is the explanation of its existence? If your hiking buddy said to you, “Don’t worry about it – it just exists, inexplicably!,” you would think either that he was crazy or that he wanted you to keep on moving. But you wouldn’t take seriously the idea that this ball just exists without any explanation of its existence.

Now suppose that the ball, instead of being the size of a basketball, were the size of an automobile. Merely increasing the size of the ball would not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence, would it? Suppose it were the size of a house? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of a planet or a galaxy? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of the entire universe? Same problem!

Merely increasing the size of the object does not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence. And so I think it is very plausible to think that everything that exists has an explanation of why it exists." (http://bit.ly/Pm4s92)

your use of the KALAM Cosmological Argument is impressive but still false.

1 has the assumtion that cause and effect is a hard and fast law of the universe. On most levels it is However on the Quantum level you can have very weird things happen (i.e. Shrodinger's Cat, Zero-Point Energy, Atoms appearing and disappearing without known cause)

1A has an assumtion that it there will be no answer to the "cause" of the universe as we know it today. Atheism by definiation has no statements reguarding the universe outside doubt of the existance of gods. If your looking for a WORLDVIEW to bash that Atheism tends to bleed into and most "New" Atheists like Dawkins and Harris subscibe to then your talking about Secular Humanism. Being able to say "I don't know" is a very powerful tool and saying "I don't know, yet." is even more so. Right now we have a few ideas but do not yet have emperical data to back up the math from Steven Hawking in particualar.

1B is invalidated by point 1A.

2 is agreeable the sky is also blue on the planet Earth.

3 - Facts not in evidence; Spacetime to the best of our knowledge is a reaction due to the expansion of the universe from the initinal singularity event it is a effect from the cause due to a reaction and happenstance we do not have information on. 13.7 Billion lightyears (and how we determine at this point the age of our universe) is mearly the size of what we can SEE in the universe from this position in the universe.)

4 - invalid due to point 3's lack of evidence and too many unknowns to qualify with certainity
5 - Unknown and possibily unknowable due to not being able to currently observe things outside the known universe.
6 - One of many possible difinitions of God. I assume your speaking of the Abrahamic God (of Judism, Christianity, and Islam)
7 - Due to unknowns from point 3 on this also is uncertain.

Last three paragraphes is the maker argument that if something exists it must have a maker but then goes into infinite regression because the maker too must be made.

EVEN SO - EVEN SO. Let's say I give you ALL of those points. ALL of them. Let's go into a world in which all of it is true. That there is a God. You have explained up to the idea of a theistic God. Good. Now which one exactly.

I would argue that God had as much to do with our creation directly as our parents did. Sure our parents provide the components in which it's possible to build us but they did not pick out the exact eye color or the exact shape of our noses, etc. etc. etc. Nature's Laws did that. I could argue that God is more of a watchmaker who watches creation and only interfere's when it breaks. I could argue that God is a Machine, or an Alien, or billions of other possible happenstances that would not fit your view of God.

Simply put your talking points have no effect on us since we have heard them before and debunked them again and again.

I. Actually it's an adaptation of Leibniz's Cosmological Argument.


II. How is your metaphysical contention more plausible than mine? Better still, what makes my metaphysical asseveration implausible or incoherent? And yes, your contention that the universe came into being sine causa is precisely that, a metaphysical one.

Unalike Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion or Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, your supposition is not contingent upon the properties, causal powers, and dispositions of the natural kinds of substances which happen to exist. Science certainly has no experience of things popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. (Bohmian quantum mechanics, for instance, is fully deterministic and states that any indeterminacy is merely conceptual.)

“Being does not arise from nonbeing”; “something cannot come from nothing”. These are putative metaphysical principles, like cause and effect, unrestricted in their application. Accordingly, we have very good grounds, both conceptually and scientifically, for believing that whatever begins to exist has a cause.


III. Thing is, Gnostic Atheism doesn’t do what you claim. It advances the positive claims, “There is no creator” and “God does not exist” but does so completely bereft of evidence. This stands in complete defiance of rational thought for arguments are proven false based on positive evidence of their falsehood not on argumentum ex silentio fallacies.

Such claims are just as absurd as if, prior to 1939, you pompously proclaimed, "There's no such thing as Francium. There's simply no evidence for it's existence."

Gnostic Atheism demonstrably, then, is lazy and sophistic.


“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.” 
― Frederick Buechner

IV. The premise that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)

As Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell put it, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

As such, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.


V. Is it your contention that (5) is false or implausible?


VI. You’re overlooking the fact that an infinite regress of causes has no basis in reality; it can’t be turtles all the way down. (Lookup “Hilbert's Grand Hotel” if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2W2vduP22Q). As such, whatever brought about the beginning of the universe 13.70 billion years ago (BVG Theorem) it must be uncaused, eternal.

VII. Given the facts in support of all of the premisses I’ve submitted and your nonsuccess at proving any of them false or implausible, (7) stands manifestly as a sound and reasonable conclusion.


Q .E. D.

VIII. Now, as to which God is the true God, we only need refer to the manual He left for us - The Bible. How do we know it was authored by our Creator and is not merely the work of man? One of the most compelling reasons why millions of reasonable people the world over believe that the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah God is the fact that it contains many, many highly specific prophecies that were fulfilled exactly as predicted. No other text – religious or otherwise – holds such an esteemed distinction. Given that it's humanly ** impossible ** for anyone to predict with full accuracy what's going to occur from one hour to the next it's clear that Bible prophecies are not of human – thus divine – origin.

Here are some prominent examples of specific, unfailing Bible prophecies that were fulfilled exactly as foretold -

http://bit.ly/11s7PTp

http://bit.ly/136NAEZ


Only the Bible reveals that our Creator has a personal name, Jehovah, and informs us that He is “abundant in loving-kindness.” (Ex. 34:6) “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people, for he is good; for his loving-kindness is to time indefinite.” (Psalm 118:1, 29) “[God] is kind toward the unthankful and wicked,” states Luke 6:35. “He makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45) “Your loving-kindness, O Jehovah,” sang the psalmist, “has filled the earth.” (Ps. 119:64) The Scriptures contain numerous accounts of how Jehovah showed loving-kindness to his worshippers.

For instance, Jehovah protected and fed the Israelites while they spent 40 years in the wilderness. In the Promised Land, God provided judges to rescue them from their enemies and to bring them back to true worship. Because Jehovah stuck with them through good times and bad during all those centuries, he could tell the nation: “With a love to time indefinite I have loved you. That is why I have drawn you with loving-kindness.”—Jer. 31:3.

Only the Bible informs us that Jehovah goes beyond speaking about forgiveness. He acts accordingly. Jehovah used Jeremiah to exhort: “Do return, O renegade Israel . . . I shall not have my face drop angrily upon you people . . . I shall not stay resentful to time indefinite.” (Jer. 3:12) God does not feel lingering anger or bitterness toward any of his people whom he has forgiven. Rather, though a wrong has been committed, Jehovah wants to repair the damaged relationship. Despite the sins a person may have committed, if that sinner truly repents and seeks God’s forgiveness, Jehovah will ‘bring him back’ to His favor and blessing. (Jer. 15:19)

Consider the example of King David of ancient Israel, who sang: “[Jehovah] is forgiving all your error, [he] is healing all your maladies.” How David must have appreciated being shown forgiveness for his sin with Bath-sheba and for murdering her husband. He extolled Jehovah, saying: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, his loving-kindness is superior toward those fearing him.” (Ps. 103:3, 11)

Everything you need to know about your loving Creator and how to develop a close personal relationship with Him is right there in the Bible.

That said, if you have any pressing questions about our Creator feel free to ask. I'll be more than happy to show you how to find the answers with God's Inspired Word, the Bible :)

I. I am duly corrected. Thank you.

II. When speaking of the origins of the universe which is actively being investigated in the realm of empical science we then have to compare to reality as best we know it. Speaking on objects that we know exist and can test against then play in the realm of Emprical Science and not mearly Philosophy. "How did the universe begin" is not an Philosophical question in of itself verse the question "Why did the universe begin" which IS a Philosophical arguement.

II. Quantum Mechanics does seem to have an order but to say we understand it would be misjuding greatly and still have plenty of areas where we have little to no understanding even though we have observed it. In which case I suppose I can be called wrong on a few points prior.


III. Gnostic Atheism is qualifed with the term Gnostic. I personally am not sure of a God but until prove comes to light to it's existance I will live my life without it. Obviously someone as intelligent as yourself wouldn't try to pull out the argument that even if I don't believe I should follow anyways due to possible consequense in the afterlife (the name of the term leaves me at this time)

IV. in which in most of those text books we have the term "Observable" before the word Universe which is a qualifer and using the data we can observe we determined the 13.7 Billion Years number but past that is a Dark Age before the Stars but after the big bang.

Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem actually says IN MOST not ALL, not MUST. MOST. However that refers more to the SHAPE of our universe than anything else in which we could have a Sphere Universe in which we have a finite size but no determinable begining outside of the temporal dimension which as I have stated we can only determine to the qualifer "Observable" All Matter to the best of our knowledge can be transfered to Energy and all known energy in the universe originated at the big bang. How that energy got there is unknown and possibily unknowable which would meet the defination of the "past-eternal" state and meet a few criteria for your God as your have argued.

I have not stated that the universe is infitinly old I am saying that we are at a wall and have to qualify with the term Observable. The Universe without such term to the best of our knowledge may not have a limit. There are Physicists working on that question as we speak actually. Hawking and Krass are two of them.

Where the Physics breaks down right now is when we hit that Singularity that was before the Big Bang Event because we don't know how long it existed since we have no measure in any forum. Which is where the timeless/spaceless part of the argument comes into play but once physics breaks down it does mearly become a philosophical argument which has little to prove in any meaningful way the existance of God. Good is not in Evidence. Beginingless implies Eternal which implies timeless to be honest and thus really doesn't need to be said.

I could say that God moves on a different time-like dimension then the one that exists in our known universe but since we cannot perceive outside our universe or before the Singularity it really doesn't have any provable evidence although the philosophical case could be made and dismissed just as easily.

V. Clearly not. see counterpoint 4.

VI. I agree it cannot be infinite regression However where I stop is where the Physics breaks down instead of going that one extra uneeded step outside. If you want to say that God Caused the Singularity and used that as the spark/seed to create the universe then that's fine but I could just as easily use any explination I want in place of God just as easily. Why does it have to be God and more importantly why does it have to be YOUR God.

Side note: This is good fun you are being a really great sport in playing this out this far you really have done a good deal of reasearch from William Lang Craig.

VII. Claiming victory seems to be your strong suit when I clearly fought off each point you made with a far degree of success...

VIII. Which if your are correct narrows it down to the Big Monothestic Three each of which have issues with the other and debate the others are wrong and that's not talking about the subsets within them.

No, he just copies and pastes,

@Jondoen

I. Then it appears Agnostic Atheist is a more apropos appellative for your worldview. Significantly, though, you find yourself on more solid footing than the Gnostic Atheist for, unalike them, you don’t advance any positive claims against the existence of God.


II. I refer you again to my rejoinder where I address your metaphysical claim that the universe came into being sine causa. Here I stated, ““Being does not arise from nonbeing”; “something cannot come from nothing”. These are putative metaphysical principles, like cause and effect, unrestricted in their application. Accordingly, we have very good grounds, both conceptually and scientifically, for believing that whatever begins to exist has a cause.” As such, asking, “What caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago” is a completely natural question and one that merits a compelling answer. Unless, of course, you have evidence which necessarily construes such principles as merely physical rather than metaphysical. Do you?

Moving forward, you speculate that, perhaps, the energy that was converted into the matter that makes up our universe is from past eternal. (If I misunderstood then please correct me) However, this notion is diametrically opposed to the standard Big Bang model which states that all matter and all energy began to exist at the singularity, including space and time itself; literally nothing existed before the singularity.

Are you trying to put forth a competing theory to the Big Bang model? I’m all for it if you are. I just need you to please specify what evidence you’re basing it on.

III. Since you agree (5) is not false or implausible then it stands affirmed, yes?

IV. If ** only ** the Bible has the mark of divine authorship how does that narrow it down to three monotheistic belief systems? Last I checked, only sedulous Christians adhere to the Bible’s teachings. What am I missing?


V. Thank you. I too am enjoying our pleasant discussion tremendously.


VI. And keep on fighting! I don’t expect you to accept anything I’ve shared with you as truth until I have addressed all of your concerns to your satisfaction :)

I. Yes, I'm in the group that says "Not sure, but until emperical evidence states elsewise then I'm not living with any God concept since for now it is an improven concept"

II. “What caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago” is a valid question which right now the answer is "We don't know until we get a better understanding of the Math around Singularites like Black Holes since that's the closest analog to the singularity state of the pre-Big Bang universe." IF you want to assert God in here then you are in a God-of-the-Gaps arguement which time and time again as Science marches forward has been pushed back time and time again. At this point when we talk about the universe we're in a EMPERICAL question which demands the use of hard emperical evidence and right now you don't have a compelling case for it.

III. It's conceiveable in the idea that something could be outside the universe but you have to remember that the term Universe is meant to reference the totality of existence. Anything "outside" the universe by definition should not exist. At that point you would have to reword using the term "Creation" and define it's borders in a way that's understandable, Thus allowing "space" for Heaven, Hell, and God within the term Universe. One more reason I consider the Multiverse theory a bit bunk.

IV. Such "Authorship" would have been long since scrubbed since the original texts have been lost to history and through scribes and translations have lost most if not all of it's original intention and that's not even applying to the Aprophical Texts that were possible to be selected for the Bible but were excluded and thus still lost to history.

Even if certain books have such Authorship it would be hard press to say Authorship in one book would automatically give the entire compilation crediance and even so we know that some of them have human authors like the letters of St. Peter which then you have to claim are divine inspired which then means God with all his perfection had to speak through an imperfect scribe which anything done by human hands in the application of the bible should be equally tainted.

V. this point 5 I see we have agreement on.
VI. I intend to but I doubt either of us will be changing our original positions anytime soon but at least we are giving each other things to look into hopefully even if it doesn't change our positions it would at least give something to know to better enrich our pools of knowledge.

I. Mind you, I'm not, in fact, positing a so-called "God of the gaps," to explain gaps in our scientific knowledge. Rather, my argument is based upon the best of what we do know in science. The premise that space, time as well as all matter and energy began to exist is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find that statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported, as we've seen, by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

So I'm simply saying that the best scientific evidence we have today supports the truth of that premise. And from that, the rest of the deductive argument follows. So in no way is this an appeal to ignorance, to try to punt to God to explain what we don't understand. It is a natural conclusion from the logical validity of the preceding premisses. In other words, it's simple, mundane logic.


II. Since the singularity that birthed our universe existed prior to and outside of the universe itself, what have you designated the realm it occupied?


III. Were you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts - in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine - available today in museums the world over? In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible's. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it's unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts. As such, any fears of tampering or errata are unwarranted.

As far as the Bible’s canon is concerned, the "Protestant" canon agrees more with the very first Bible, The Tanakh, than with the Catholic and Orthodox canons. This is significant because The Tanakh is decidedly older than the Catholic and Orthodox canons making these illegitimate adulterations of the Bible.

I’m still unclear, though, If ** only ** the Bible has the mark of divine authorship how does that narrow it down to three monotheistic belief systems since only sedulous Christians adhere to the Bible?


IV. You say you are in agreement with (5) but also say you’re not going to change your mind. If you agree with (5) in what way do you still consider yourself Agnostic?

8 More Responses

Want to my issue with God? He sends people like you to do his dirty work. I mean seriously are you so weak in your own position that you have to come into our little group here and challenge us? Don't get me wrong many of us enjoy a good challenge now and again, but let's be serious. I'm not going to change my position; You're not going to change yours.

I see why we can't live and let live and let what happens happens. Please leave this group you clearly don't belong here. If you want to challenge Atheists make a Youtube Video and spread it around to Reddit, Twitter, and any other site but this one.

EP is ment to be a safe space where those who feel like they're all alone find others like themselves and speak our minds without having to worry about anyone comming down on us which believe it or not does occur here in the State of Texas. I got LAWS against me running for public office if that isn't straight up a violation of the US Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 3 BTW) then I don't know what is.

If Maxi is the best an all powerful god can send to do "battle" with the heathen atheists, then I think this is as close to "proof" that there is no god as one can get. :)

Cheers,

Jim

"Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues 'no air exists' but continues to breathe air while he argues. Now intellectually, atheists continue to breathe - they continue to use reason and draw scientific conclusions [which assumes an orderly universe], to make moral judgments [which assumes absolute values] - but the atheistic view of things would in theory make such 'breathing' impossible. They are breathing God's air all the time they are arguing against him"
- Greg Bahnsen

The problem is, no one would argue no air exists except desperate theists. You know this straw man to be bull yet you used it. Closed mind indeed.

Doesn't change the fact that you’re still a cowardly degenerate who gets his jollies violently battering women. You have no morals and yet you want to judge the morals of others? You should be locked up, sicko.

Facts not in evidence, but you will post this again I am sure. However, and for the record, I do not do any of the things you ascribe to me, but feel free to try and score points by repeating it. You should pray to your skydaddy and ask him for forgiveness.

2 More Responses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYtYQ0a7btQ

This is how they get children to believe in creationist tripe.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." - Samuel Clemens

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Edward Gibbon

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches." - Benjamin Franklin

lol

have to give credit

"Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night" - Isaac Asimov

"The moment you shift the conversation to God ... you can pretend to know things you absolutely and obviously cannot know." -Sam Harris

"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." - John Buchan

Why must it be our job to disprove God's existence? Shouldn't it be your job, as the believer, to prove God's existence?

Right on

Because in rational thought arguments are proven false based on positive evidence of their falsehood not on argumentum ex silentio fallacies. As it stands, your atheistic worldview teeters on the base of an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.

What you claim is just as absurd as if, prior to 1939, you pompously proclaimed, "There's no such thing as Francium. There's simply no evidence for it's existence."


This pithy postmortem of your not-so-well thought out rationale glaringly lays bare why your atheistic philosophy is just plain lazy and sophistic.


“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.”
― Frederick Buechner

In other words: It is too difficult for him to prove it exists so he wants you to do the work so he can sit back and claim victory for making you do his bidding.

@Marc

Do you accept all evidence or just scientific evidence?

In other words, are you willing to accept his version of evidence despite it being unprovable and false.

Personally there is a lot that Science cannot answer for. the question of God's existance is one of them.

I personally find emperical evidence (i.e. testable by multiple people, independantly) seems to be some of the strongest type of evidence there can be. After all that's what most first-wold justice systems are based on. Verifiable Testable.

I agree. Science's purpose is not defined by creationists.

@Jondoen

Given what you've just recognized, instead of delusions of omniscience, shouldn’t the fact that the sciences do not know the fundamental answers to humanity’s most burning questions lead to humility rather than contemptuousness and openness rather then bigotry?

Some can be, some cannot be because they cannot be tested. Moral questions for instance is outside the realm of Emperical Science, but well within the wheel house of Philosophy. In the case of Neuroscience we have some cross over there "How we think?" is both a Philosophical and Emperical Science question that has a lot of answers. There are plenty of means to solve the "burning questions" where Emperical Science fails there are other means to solve that question.

The question if God exists would be a Philosophical Question and not a Scientific one. There are plenty of strong philosophers on both sides of the line in that case and where the argument should be not in the realm of Emperical Science.

I am not saying that since there is no proof, it must not and cannot exist. I am asking why it should be my job to prove that your God does not exist. Asking me to disprove your God would be equivalent of asking you to disprove Russell's teapot.

@Jondoen

My point precisely!

So which do you find more plausible and why, a universe from nothing by nothing for nothing or a universe that was caused to exist 13.70 billion years ago?

Due to it not having any hard proof the burden of said proof is on you to logically make to prove the existance of God in which would comport with our Empircal Reality since you claim that this being you call God created it.

The Universe didn't come from nothing. It came from Energy during a phase known as the Singularity from which after that we do not know and cannot know with any degree of certainty which references back to the points I have made above in further argumentation with you.

@Marc

I forgot to address this to you earlier, my apologies.

Because in rational thought arguments are proven false based on positive evidence of their falsehood not on argumentum ex silentio fallacies. As it stands, your atheistic worldview teeters on the base of an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.

What you claim is just as absurd as if, prior to 1939, you pompously proclaimed, "There's no such thing as Francium. There's simply no evidence for it's existence."


This pithy postmortem of your not-so-well thought out rationale glaringly lays bare why your atheistic philosophy is just plain lazy and sophistic.


“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.”
― Frederick Buechner

Did you even read my comment at all? No matter how many times you copy-and-paste stuff, it doesn't make it any more true.

@Marc

Certainly! Did you reflect on mine?

Let me repeat my earlier post.

I am not saying that since there is no proof, it must not and cannot exist. I am asking why it should be my job to prove that your God does not exist. Asking me to disprove your God would be equivalent of asking you to disprove Russell's teapot.

@Marc

To which I replied -

Because in rational thought arguments are proven false based on positive evidence of their falsehood not on argumentum ex silentio fallacies. As it stands, your atheistic worldview teeters on the base of an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.

What you claim is just as absurd as if, prior to 1939, you pompously proclaimed, "There's no such thing as Francium. There's simply no evidence for it's existence."


This pithy postmortem of your not-so-well thought out rationale glaringly lays bare why your atheistic philosophy is just plain lazy and sophistic.


“Unbelief is as much of a choice as belief is. What makes it in many ways more appealing is that whereas to believe in something requires some measure of understanding and effort, not to believe doesn't require much of anything at all.”
― Frederick Buechner

Your logic: "I'm not going to respond to all the arguments. I'm just going to post these four sentences over and over again - that'll automatically make it true!"

@Marc

How have I not explained why it's your job to prove the nonexistence of God?

First, Because you just posted the same crap twice, and didn't even bother to make it correct.

Second, assuming your post actually explains anything, tell me why I shouldn't use it against you and explain why it's your job to prove the nonexistence of Russell's teapot. Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Hey I just saw a unicorn. It must therefore exist. NOT.

@Marc

That's the point, you can!

Here, I'll disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for you:

Spaghetti has defined physical properties, thus, a monster cannot be created from it. Moreover, our understanding of aerodynamics makes it glaringly obvious that spaghetti cannot travel sustainedly through the air. As such, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no basis in reality.

Want one more?

Russell's teapot also has no basis in reality because space is an extremely hostile environment. Just the constant bombardment of cosmic and solar radiation alone would be enough to obliterate it.


Now, go ahead and do the same for God. Prove His nonexistence.

That's proof that FSM and Russell's teapot are unlikely to exist. Not proof that they definitely do not exist.

I also love how you completely ignored the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

@Marc

Read it again. It is proof that neither have any basis in reality. In other words, they cannot and do not exist.

Unless you also believe in the existence of square-circles, married-bachelors, shriveled water, gelid stars and gelatinous diamonds ...

Again, it is proof that they are unlikely to exist. You have yet to rule out the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an ultimate being who designed the world, including spaghetti, in its image.

And space is a very gigantic place. It is extremely likely that there is at least one position in space where a teapot would not be bombarded by asteroids.

Okay then, let's remove the "pink" part. Prove that it still does not exist.

I. Again, spaghetti has ** defined ** physical properties, thus, a monster cannot be created from it. Moreover, our understanding of aerodynamics makes it glaringly obvious that spaghetti cannot travel sustainedly through the air. As such, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no basis in reality; it cannot and does not exist.


II. Ignoratio Elenchi; I didn't claim anything about asteroids.

Getting back to what I did actually state, tell me, is there a region of space not bathed in obliterating cosmic and solar radiation?

Once again, you are under the assumption that if you ignore my points, they cease to exist. There is a possibility that there is a spaghetti god who has created the entire universe, with a food (with defined physical properties) in his image. In addition, I never said anything about flying through the air. FSM could very well live in another dimension, universe, or plane of existence altogether.

Second, fair enough. But how do you know this teapot is not designed in some manner to be immune from cosmic and solar radiation?

Third, as I earlier mentioned, ignoring my points will not make them disappear. You still have yet to respond to the invisible unicorn claim.

@Marc

I. If you truly and honestly believe that, why don't you believe in God?

II. Because Russell's teapot is just china.

III. Ahh, yes, the invisible unicorn. Btw, it's good that you changed it to a non-pink invisible unicorn because I would have challenged you to prove it was pink. After all, you can't see it so how would you know?

Still, just because something is invisible it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, provided, of course that there is indirect evidence of it's existence.

For instance, indirect evidence is relied upon to conclude that the Sun produces energy through nuclear fusion, hydrogen exists on it and that the Earth has an iron core. In the same fashion, the universe and all the life it contains serves as indirect, but conclusive evidence for the existence of God (unless, of course, you are of the faith that the universe came from nothing by nothing for nothing. Are you?)

That said, if your single horned animal is an animal then indirect evidence of it's existence must necessarily abound. For instance, if it's an animal then it must eat and everything that eats poops. Does your unicorn poop?

I. I don't truly and honestly believe that. Both FSM and the Christian God have the exact same "proof", evidence, and likelihood.
II. When did I ever say it was just china?
III. Of course it removes waste. And since I know you're going to ask why no one has ever found it, I'll give you two points. (a) How do you know it's not invisible as well? and (b) Just because the feces has not been found does not mean it cannot exist. I point back to your argument with Francium.

I. Really? I've proven your vaunted Flying Spaghetti Monster has no basis in reality based on its physical characteristics. Do the same for God. Prove He does not nor cannot exist.

II. (facepalm)

Next time, before you use an argument research it thoroughly so you know what you're actually arguing. (See Russell's Teapot)

III. Invisible or not, solid metabolic wastes possesses certain characteristics which make it easily identifiable. Wanna take a wild guess what these are?

I. You have not yet ruled out the possibility of an omniscient being in another dimension, universe, reality, or plane of existence altogether. The fact that I do not honestly believe FSM exists does not change the facts.
II. I know that Russell described his teapot as china, but how do we know there's not a teapot made of a different material?
III. Smell. At this point I'd like to say that the absence of fecal matter would not be definite proof of it's non-existence. And since you're going to ask, it has no smell.

@Marc

I. You want me to rule out the existence of God? That's your job silly.

II. No problem. When you're done arguing with yourself feel free to come back to the discussion.

III. Non sequitur. All animals consume nourishment and excrete solid metabolic wastes. If your animal doesn't then it's not an animal, thence, it has no basis in reality.

I. No, I'm asking you to prove that the FSM is not a God, deity, or other holy being.
II. Prove that said teapot is not immune to solar radiation.
III. It has fecal waste, which has no smell.

I. Asked and answered. I refer you to yesterday's rejoinders.

II. Sure, as soon as you prove china is immune to intense cosmic and solar radiation.

III. Just as with Russell's teapot, you can't distort characteristics midw