Proof for the existence of an intelligent Creator and His purpose

[andersbranderud]

Here follows a proof for a Creator and also a proof which prove the Creator’s purpose of the human:

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). [Source: www.netzarim.co.il]

Religions that contradict" תורה (Torah), therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

[liveyoungdiefast]

Here follows a proof for a Creator and also a proof which prove the Creator’s purpose of the human:

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.



Wrong. A heat death of the universe, a theory which is dependent on universal expansion, was theorized by Lord Kelvin in 1852.


Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.


Space time is a fold in the fabric of a universe, not an actual line. We only understand time as linear because we perceive the third dimension rather than the fourth.


From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

A reaction of atoms is a cause.


No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator

You can't jump from physics to philosophy at random. Give me one reason to believe your philosophy is anything but baseless opinion.



An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). [Source: www.netzarim.co.il]

Religions that contradict" תורה (Torah), therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

And the Torah is the word of the creator... how? Why not the Koran or Dianetics? Because really you are not a scientist or a philosopher you're just another religious zealot desperately attempting to seem intelligent. You don't want to convert anyone, you just feed your superiority complex. If only you didn't just get owned.

[Bougainvillea]

I completely agree with the poster above. I believe in the idea of a higher being, but I have yet to see any fool proof evidence. Because so far, this is an attempt to explain something that will remain unexplained for years to come.

So for now, I'll stick with my own beliefs. As they seem more plausible.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Here follows a proof for a Creator and also a proof which prove the Creator’s purpose of the human:

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). [Source: www.netzarim.co.il]

Religions that contradict" תורה (Torah), therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

AHAHAHAHAH Crackpot theories make me laugh, you cant use logic and mathematics to prove that something to which doesnt exist, exists. This made my day, I laughed so hard I peed and pooped.

[Bougainvillea]

GREG, THAT'S HILARIOUS.

But oh so very true.

[Rutherford The Brave]

GREG, THAT'S HILARIOUS.

But oh so very true.

Lol

I mean all in all christians and other religions can believe in a supreme being its not my right to say that they can't when you use sciene which is all about using evidence and observing to make logical theories and explanations for everything. When no one has ever observed god and seen anything that he has done. When we have evidence that things have indeed changed over time for us to be the way we are~!

[Bougainvillea]

Exactly.
Like when M. Leakey found "Lucy".

3.5 million years.

Who are people to say god made us how we are.
But then again, who am I to say they're wrong.

Until I see some credibility, I'll stick with what I believe.
Evolution.

[theOperaGhost]

Wrong. A heat death of the universe, a theory which is dependent on universal expansion, was theorized by Lord Kelvin in 1852.



Space time is a fold in the fabric of a universe, not an actual line. We only understand time as linear because we perceive the third dimension rather than the fourth.



A reaction of atoms is a cause.



You can't jump from physics to philosophy at random. Give me one reason to believe your philosophy is anything but baseless opinion.




And the Torah is the word of the creator... how? Why not the Koran or Dianetics? Because really you are not a scientist or a philosopher you're just another religious zealot desperately attempting to seem intelligent. You don't want to convert anyone, you just feed your superiority complex. If only you didn't just get owned.

You, my atheist friend, have just as much of a superiority complex as the OP does. Almost all atheists have the worst superiority complexes of anyone on earth...or maybe that's just the atheists that are on this site.

And, although the OP did get owned pretty badly, you can't prove God doesn't exist. Now, I know you'll come back with the "burden of truth is on people who believe in God" argument. I myself, do not believe in god, however I don't have any problem with people who do. People can believe whatever the hell they want to. I don't even give a fuck if people think a flying spaghetti monster exists...that is their own personal belief. I don't know why all (or nearly all) atheists have to get in every theists face about what they believe...it's none of your fucking business.

[liveyoungdiefast]

It is impossible for atheists to have worse superiority complexes by Christians because Christians believe they are so right that they deserve to be given pleasure and happiness forever and everyone else to be tortured in hell forever. I could not be so arrogant if I desired to because my arrogance is bound by reality.

[Rutherford The Brave]

It is impossible for atheists to have worse superiority complexes by Christians because Christians believe they are so right that they deserve to be given pleasure and happiness forever and everyone else to be tortured in hell forever. I could not be so arrogant if I desired to because my arrogance is bound by reality.

You cant generalize like that, most christains aren't fundamentalists and some dont even believe in hell! You need to choose your words wisely

[punkjake]

You, my atheist friend, have just as much of a superiority complex as the OP does. Almost all atheists have the worst superiority complexes of anyone on earth...or maybe that's just the atheists that are on this site.

And, although the OP did get owned pretty badly, you can't prove God doesn't exist. Now, I know you'll come back with the "burden of truth is on people who believe in God" argument. I myself, do not believe in god, however I don't have any problem with people who do. People can believe whatever the hell they want to. I don't even give a fuck if people think a flying spaghetti monster exists...that is their own personal belief. I don't know why all (or nearly all) atheists have to get in every theists face about what they believe...it's none of your fucking business.
this is exactly how i feel but i'm a thesit ,who gives a $hit what you are.Its your belief,not mine

[Rutherford The Brave]

this is exactly how i feel but i'm a thesit ,who gives a $hit what you are.Its your belief,not mine

He's a smart person who uses his logic instead of following an idol.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

You cant generalize like that, most christains aren't fundamentalists and some dont even believe in hell! You need to choose your words wisely

Hell is a core part of the Christian belief system. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to just forget about it because its a mean idea. I know the idea of hell is absolutely horrible. But if you call yourself a Christian (to anyone who might be) why do you worship a God that would send me to such a horrible place? If YOU don't think I deserve to be tortured forever, then stop singing about how GREAT the god is who would want to send me there!

[Sage]

Here follows a proof for a Creator and also a proof which prove the Creator’s purpose of the human:

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

]No, it was first observed that the Universe is expanding, and that therefore, if we go back in time, it must have ultimately all been at one point before it was what we know it today.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No, it does not state in the theory that there is no cause, we simply do not know what said cause was. Admitting you do not know the answer to something is called "intellectual honesty".

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator

I don't understand how you draw that conclusion (the part I bolded) based on the presence of a "creator".

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

And he, in his all-knowing wisdom, chose some stone-age simpletons in the middle of a barren desert, despite the fact that there were already hundreds of thousands of people on every other part of the planet?

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). [Source: www.netzarim.co.il]

Religions that contradict" תורה (Torah), therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

Pseudoscientific history is the antithesis of intelligence.

[theOperaGhost]

It is impossible for atheists to have worse superiority complexes by Christians because Christians believe they are so right that they deserve to be given pleasure and happiness forever and everyone else to be tortured in hell forever. I could not be so arrogant if I desired to because my arrogance is bound by reality.

No, atheists have superiority complexes just as bad. And maybe it's just because I've grown up Lutheran, but it is my belief that everyone is forgiven of their sins, no matter what. That means even you and James (shwanerd) get to go to heaven...lucky us...

Now, I say you have just as bad of a superiority complex as a Christian, because you also ALWAYS have to be right. In my opinion, neither of you know if you are right, and neither of you will ever know what is right or not. It's basically a pointless argument. A fight between a fundie christian and an extreme atheist will never get anywhere, because they both ALWAYS have to be right about their opinions.

I'm glad I don't fit or choose either side. I could really care less about if there is a god or not. I tend to defend christianity more because I find most atheists to be complete arrogant assholes and I don't really want to be one of those. However, just because I defend Christianity doesn't mean I believe in God, Heaven, Hell, etc...

[quartermaster]

It is impossible for atheists to have worse superiority complexes by Christians because Christians believe they are so right that they deserve to be given pleasure and happiness forever and everyone else to be tortured in hell forever. I could not be so arrogant if I desired to because my arrogance is bound by reality.

I am not attacking your basic premise as to who has the larger "superiority complex," because it is a ridiculous premise to argue.

However, the basis for your premise I can attack, as it is incorrect, as a Christian (in so far as what a Christian is supposed to believe) does not believe he deserves anything. In fact, a fundamental principle of Christianity is the understanding that no human (Christ follower or not) deserves to go to heaven, they are essentially unworthy, however, it is through the death of their messiah and the good graces of the lord their God that they are allowed entrance. So, it is not a matter of "deserving" anything, as Christians acknowledge that they don't deserve heaven, but their faith affords them access through their lord; it goes back to the Old Testament where it was believed that good acts could earn access into heaven, but as the New Testament would teach, no acts could earn such entrance, but instead a supreme sacrifice was required.

[The Boy Genius]

assuming that your write who made the creator? The universe started as a ultra dense atom and then at the b b it expanded faster than the speed of light which were allowed for the temperature of the universe is to be uniform. First few milliseconds of the universe in a few words.

[INFERNO]

It is impossible for atheists to have worse superiority complexes by Christians because Christians believe they are so right that they deserve to be given pleasure and happiness forever and everyone else to be tortured in hell forever. I could not be so arrogant if I desired to because my arrogance is bound by reality.

Both sides, theists and atheists can be arrogant and have superiority complexes. Some atheists will be more arrogant than a theist and some theists will be more arrogant than atheists. You cant accurately say that one side is more arrogant than the other because you have no proof to back your stance up with. Assuming that somehow you do have some credible proof, different Christians have different views and interpretations of their beliefs so they may not nicely if into the data. Likewise, various beliefs can be considered to be somewhat atheistic, so you're going to have different walks of atheists.

[Sage]

Does no one else find it strange how the OP registered just to make this thread?

[Silverfist64]

Does no one else find it strange how the OP registered just to make this thread?

Lol, it was a hell of a first post though.

Yes im athiest. Im a very strong athiest. I grew up catholic and i believe everything said and taught to me was a bunch of jibberish bull****. So yes i am bias to a certian extent, but that doesnt mean that i have a superiority complex and i have to say everyone who doesnt believe in what i dont believe in is wrong. People can live their lifes how the want. If they truly are afraid of hell and for their soul then they have every right to believe in what they want to. Who knows...maybe there is a god-like being and all of us athiests will burn in hell. Then again there could be nothing waiting for us after death and our soul and concious will simply decipiate into the universe. So thats just my view on this whole subject.

[sebbie]

Does no one else find it strange how the OP registered just to make this thread?

Probably because it was a spam bot to get more hits on the website it posted.

[sasquatch]

frankly i've heard trip heads make more logical cases about there being a supreme creator... :)

[MykeSoBe]

As a devout Roman Catholic, I applaud the original poster of this thread. No one will ever be able to convert me from Roman Catholicism. This is not ignorance, this is something that's known as "faith".

See, God is like the wind; you don't see Him yet you feel Him, albeit in spiritual ways. I never get how they say the Universe was created. First they said there was NOTHING before the Universe then suddenly it just came to be?? Lord have mercy on those who do not know the Light, the Truth ...

And atheists: Don't lower my rep like you did last time. I'm just being faithful, not ignorant.

[theOperaGhost]

As a devout Roman Catholic, I applaud the original poster of this thread. No one will ever be able to convert me from Roman Catholicism. This is not ignorance, this is something that's known as "faith".

See, God is like the wind; you don't see Him yet you feel Him, albeit in spiritual ways. I never get how they say the Universe was created. First they said there was NOTHING before the Universe then suddenly it just came to be?? Lord have mercy on those who do not know the Light, the Truth ...

And atheists: Don't lower my rep like you did last time. I'm just being faithful, not ignorant.

Even though I don't believe in God too much, I have to agree with his last statement...there is absolutely no reason to derep him for this post...it's rather pathetic if you do, actually.

[Sage]

This is not ignorance, this is something that's known as "faith".

No, that's dogma.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from? Damn, that sounds awfully ignorant to me.

[MykeSoBe]

No, that's dogma.



Authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from? Damn, that sounds awfully ignorant to me.

Well, you can imply that faith is "spiritual ignorance" I guess ...

Atheism itself is a religion, albeit one without churches, since they don't have anybody to worship. But, it BELIEVES in the non-existence of any deity/deities. What they teach us in schools is the "dogma" which atheism bases itself on. I have absolutely no problem with it though. After all, this "dogma" has helped us become a technologically innovative culture. But I am not directly implying that this "dogma" is untrue, and whether we would teach creationism or evolution in schools probably wouldn't matter ... the Romans, Sumerians, Greeks, and Indus Valley civilizations sure were technologically advanced (for their times) yet they each believed in various dogmas far-fetched from creationism or evolution! Without them we wouldn't have had such stories as The Odyssey, which is my most favorite story! (Or is gonna be one of my most favorite stories!)

[Art_dude]

As a devout Roman Catholic, I applaud the original poster of this thread. No one will ever be able to convert me from Roman Catholicism. This is not ignorance, this is something that's known as "faith".

You're right. That's not ignorance it's fundamentalism.

See, God is like the wind; you don't see Him yet you feel Him, albeit in spiritual ways. I never get how they say the Universe was created. First they said there was NOTHING before the Universe then suddenly it just came to be?? Lord have mercy on those who do not know the Light, the Truth ...

Not that I'm trying to prove the existence or nonexistence or God, (just playing devil's advocate here, (no pun intended :P)

Nothing is something: the universe is. If God created everything, who created God?

Telling me you 'feel' the lord isn't a convincing argument. I'm a Buddhist Atheist, and having had discussions with religious friends, I've come to realize that the "God" experience they've felt (similar to your description) is something I've also felt in meditation and yoga. A supernatural creator isn't necessary to have a spiritual or 'Godly' experience. The very fact that Hindus, Jews, and Muslims have had similar experiences only furthers the point that your "personal experience" of the lord is shared by alternate religions with different or opposing views.

And atheists: Don't lower my rep like you did last time. I'm just being faithful, not ignorant.

To those who've lowered his rep: Don't be pathetic, he's just expressing his opinion.

[Sage]

Atheism itself is a religion, albeit one without churches, since they don't have anybody to worship. But, it BELIEVES in the non-existence of any deity/deities.

WRONG. Bald is not a hair color, atheism is not a religion. Is atheism a theological stance? Yes. Is it a religion? No.

What they teach us in schools is the "dogma" which atheism bases itself on.

WRONG. Assume you're talking about evolution, it nor any other theory is infallible. The theory is taught in school because it is where the evidence we have uncovered so far points. With the discovery of new evidence, evolution will simply be swept under the rug in place of the new theory. That's not dogma, it's embracing new ideas.

I have absolutely no problem with it though. After all, this "dogma" has helped us become a technologically innovative culture.

WRONG. The open and free marketplace of new ideas is what helps us advance technologically and culturally. Dogma would simply take a very old idea and force it into everyone's mind that there is no possible way it can be wrong and that it is absurd to even suggest it's fallibility.

But I am not directly implying that this "dogma" is untrue, and whether we would teach creationism or evolution in schools probably wouldn't matter ...

WRONG. Yes it would matter. Creationism is a dogmatic belief that tells people it is undoubtably true. Have you ever taken a science class? To my knowledge, at least here in Canada, before we even get deep into a specific field, we learn the scientific method, which teaches us how to go about forming new ideas and theories based on evidence we can observe.

I might also add that you're using a false dichotomy, in that creationism is a belief about how the world began and evolution is a theory that explains the diversity we see among species. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, only how life changes over time after it began.

The entire basis you're founding your argument on is that atheism is just as much of a religion as christianity, and in doing so it shouldn't matter if we teach christianity in school because they're already teaching atheism. They are not. Statistically speaking, the greater education one has, the less likely they are to be religious. That's not promoting atheism, that's promoting free thought.

the Romans, Sumerians, Greeks, and Indus Valley civilizations sure were technologically advanced (for their times) yet they each believed in various dogmas far-fetched from creationism or evolution!

NOT FACTUALLY WRONG BUT STILL A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT. If you've ever studied cultural and societal psychology and/or examined civilizations over time, you'd know right off the bat that civilizations hundreds or thousands of years ago (like those you list) are very different from the world we live in today.

In our world today, the individual has a far greater-reaching influence upon the world than every before. We have never been (historically speaking) as free as we are now to spread our ideas among others, challenge the authority in power, and make a difference in the world. We live in intergrated societies with people of all backgrounds and all beliefs, and lest we keep a neutral standpoint wherever needed, civil turmoil will break out and people will not be happy.

Do you know why those civilizations lasted a long time? Because everyone was far more the same. All across the board in ancient civilizations, a single belief and/or race made up the vast majority of an area, if not 100%.

To those who've lowered his rep: Don't be pathetic, he's just expressing his opinion.

Would my rep not be lowered if I came about here claiming I was a neo-nazi? Not all opinions are equal. Some, and this may shock you, are stupid.

[theOperaGhost]

Would my rep not be lowered if I came about here claiming I was a neo-nazi? Not all opinions are equal. Some, and this may shock you, are stupid.

How, the fuck, does saying you're a Christian even compare to saying you're a neo-nazi?

Debates should be based on respecting other people's opinions whether you agree with them or not. From what I see, L'Orgoglio respects atheist's opinions. I've almost never seen an atheist, in real life or on the internet, have ANY respect for a theists beliefs, opinions, thoughts, faith, etc, etc, etc. It's really a double standard among atheists and I find it to be a bit of a superiority complex. "Christians are wrong and stupid. I'm fucking right because I'm an atheist! I know everything! Science for the fucking win!" Well you know what? There is also a chance that you are wrong.

I'm not even Christian nor do I believe in God, but I find that I have to take the Christian's side in most of these debates just because the atheists are (generally) so fucking close-minded. Respect other beliefs or non-beliefs...is that really so fucking hard?

[Sage]

How, the fuck, does saying you're a Christian even compare to saying you're a neo-nazi?

They're both ideologies.

Debates should be based on respecting other people's opinions whether you agree with them or not. From what I see, L'Orgoglio respects atheist's opinions. I've almost never seen an atheist, in real life or on the internet, have ANY respect for a theists beliefs, opinions, thoughts, faith, etc, etc, etc. It's really a double standard among atheists and I find it to be a bit of a superiority complex. "Christians are wrong and stupid. I'm fucking right because I'm an atheist! I know everything! Science for the fucking win!" Well you know what? There is also a chance that you are wrong.

I may be wrong, but for the time being, that's not where the evidence points, so I'll stick with it.

I'm not even Christian nor do I believe in God, but I find that I have to take the Christian's side in most of these debates just because the atheists are (generally) so fucking close-minded. Respect other beliefs or non-beliefs...is that really so fucking hard?

Opinions and beliefs are not inherently respectable. Debates are based on respecting people, not so much the views they hold. Myke (L'Orgoglio) seems like a pretty nice guy whom I've really no problem with. I admit, I don't know him, but he seems likeable enough. When it comes down to the debate, however, I must seperate the person from their views and deal specifically with the views. You speak of opinions here, am I not allowed to hold an opinion of an opinion?

Also, I may add, I'm a pagan. When you ASS-U-ME, YOU MAKE AN ASS OF U AND ME~

[theOperaGhost]

You are allowed to hold an opinion of an opinion. I definitely hold opinions on your opinions. I just think it's pretty pathetic when you derep a person for their beliefs. Derep someone for a valid reason, not because you disagree with their opinion.

[Sage]

You are allowed to hold an opinion of an opinion. I definitely hold opinions on your opinions. I just think it's pretty pathetic when you derep a person for their beliefs. Derep someone for a valid reason, not because you disagree with their opinion.

I see nothing wrong in derepping someone in the debates forum for presenting forth a poorly made argument. There have been a number of people, Ripplemagne for instance, and you yourself Jared, whom I've given positive rep for well-put arguments, even if I disagreed.

[theOperaGhost]

I see nothing wrong in derepping someone in the debates forum for presenting forth a poorly made argument. There have been a number of people, Ripplemagne for instance, and you yourself Jared, whom I've given positive rep for well-put arguments, even if I disagreed.

I generally give positive rep for well-put arguments if I disagree as well. I just don't think rep should be taken away solely because of a dissenting opinion. This thread is horribly off topic...

[quartermaster]

They're both ideologies.



So, per your assertion, it is perfectly acceptable to derep an individual based on ideology? Of course, one is free to derep as they please, but I am simply trying to establish a benchmark on what is deemed acceptable. I've actually yet to derep anyone, so this is certainly a poignant moment for me to learn a little bit more about what is deemed acceptable; for instance, if I were to derep you because I think paganism is ridiculous, or what have you, is that also acceptable? Or if I go on someone's page and see that they are Jewish, for instance, is it acceptable to derep them if I were to disagree with their ideology (I am not implying that I find paganism or Judaism ridiculous). I'm just thinking out loud really, but please do help me on this matter.


Further, who decides which opinions are more valid than others? Is it decided by viewpoint, or by the way it is presented in argumentation? Is there some sort of intellectual monopoly on opinions or is more of a general "common sense" equation? Once again, I'm thinking out loud here, but I would certainly appreciate a response.

[Sage]

So, per your assertion, it is perfectly acceptable to derep an individual based on ideology? Of course, one is free to derep as they please, but I am simply trying to establish a benchmark on what is deemed acceptable. I've actually yet to derep anyone, so this is certainly a poignant moment for me to learn a little bit more about what is deemed acceptable; for instance, if I were to derep you because I think paganism is ridiculous, or what have you, is that also acceptable? Or if I go on someone's page and see that they are Jewish, for instance, is it acceptable to derep them if I were to disagree with their ideology (I am not implying that I find paganism or Judaism ridiculous). I'm just thinking out loud really, but please do help me on this matter.


Further, who decides which opinions are more valid than others? Is it decided by viewpoint, or by the way it is presented in argumentation? Is there some sort of intellectual monopoly on opinions or is more of a general "common sense" equation? Once again, I'm thinking out loud here, but I would certainly appreciate a response.

I see nothing wrong in derepping someone in the debates forum for presenting forth a poorly made argument. There have been a number of people, Ripplemagne for instance, and you yourself Jared, whom I've given positive rep for well-put arguments, even if I disagreed.

This.

[ShatteredWings]

From what I see, L'Orgoglio respects atheist's opinions. I've almost never seen an atheist, in real life or on the internet, have ANY respect for a theists beliefs, opinions, thoughts, faith, etc, etc, etc. It's really a double standard among atheists and I find it to be a bit of a superiority complex. "Christians are wrong and stupid. I'm fucking right because I'm an atheist! I know everything! Science for the fucking win!" Well you know what? There is also a chance that you are wrong.
that's because mos of us don't bother debating about it. I respect your belifes, respect mine.

[quartermaster]

This.

That.


It now begs to question then, what does all of this mean:


Would my rep not be lowered if I came about here claiming I was a neo-nazi?


They're both ideologies.


There seems to be a disjoint premise here, because if what you responded to me is true, what is the meaning of your neo-nazi comment and your assertion that they (neo-nazism and Christianity) are ideologies? Yes, they are indeed ideologies, but how is that at all relevant if you believe one can be dereped on a faulty argument and not just a belief (if what you have quoted and given me is true to your belief, there may be a problem in coherence)?

Once again, just trying to develop understanding and clarity

[Cody_Metalhead]

Personally, I don't believe God exists.

Even though there's a chance that he does exist,
Why waste your life in a leap of faith?

The Christian life is not the funnest life to live, unless of course, you're a believer.

These are just my views.
I have nothing against anyone of any religion.
^.^

[theOperaGhost]

that's because mos of us don't bother debating about it. I respect your belifes, respect mine.

Umm...I do....

[ShatteredWings]

You seem to be a minority. I only clicked this thread because i was bored. i'm sure people would agree, tho it's usually hard to prove it when the peoplew who would agree don't bother with 'religion vs. athiest' debates.

[The Boy Genius]

Hell is a core part of the Christian belief system. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to just forget about it because its a mean idea. I know the idea of hell is absolutely horrible. But if you call yourself a Christian (to anyone who might be) why do you worship a God that would send me to such a horrible place? If YOU don't think I deserve to be tortured forever, then stop singing about how GREAT the god is who would want to send me there!

The reason i think is that people try to interpret what god says to there benefit. And they change it around and twist it on there head thats what is wrong with religion to me not that there are so many that some must ones must be wrong or that most of these holy men feel a sense of entitlement from the world it's that people who preach change what they are saying to suit there purpose and that is wrong they take what they claim to be pure or holy and change it, taint it make it something its not and then at the end of the day they claim nothing has changed and they were and always have been right.

[sasquatch]

I think that This debate could rage on for centuries, But it is neither pointless not does it have a point, I think it is more human compunction to wonder where the hell we all came from....

Personally i think douglas adams had a pretty good personal grasp of the universe.... thought i'd quote some just to bring some light heartedness to this thread :D

"Alright," said Ford, "forget that. I mean... I mean, look, do you
know – do you know how the Universe actually began for a kick off?"
"Probably not," said Arthur, who wished he'd never embarked on
any of this.
"Alright," said Ford, "imagine this. Right. You get this bath. Right. A
large round bath. And it's made of ebony."
"Where from?" said Arthur, "Harrods was destroyed by the
Vogons."
"Doesn't matter."
"So you keep saying."
"Listen."
"Alright."
"You get this bath, see? Imagine you've got this bath. And it's
ebony. And it's conical."
"Conical?" said Arthur, "What sort of..."
"Shhh!" said Ford. "It's conical. So what you do is, you see, you fill it
with fine white sand, alright? Or sugar. Fine white sand, and/or sugar.
Anything. Doesn't matter. Sugar's fine. And when it's full, you pull the
plug out... are you listening?"
"I'm listening."
"You pull the plug out, and it all just twirls away, twirls away you
see, out of the plughole."
"I see."
"You don't see. You don't see at all. I haven't got to the clever bit
yet. You want to hear the clever bit?"
"Tell me the clever bit."
"I'll tell you the clever bit."
Ford thought for a moment, trying to remember what the clever bit
was.
"The clever bit," he said, "is this. You film it happening."
"Clever."
"That's not the clever bit. This is the clever bit, I remember now
that this is the clever bit. The clever bit is that you then thread the
film in the projector... backwards!"
"Backwards?"
"Yes. Threading it backwards is definitely the clever bit. So then,
you just sit and watch it, and everything just appears to spiral
upwards out of the plughole and fill the bath. See?"
"And that's how the Universe began is it?" said Arthur.
"No," said Ford, "but it's a marvellous way to relax."

:D:D

annnnddd

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

Enjoy :P

[IAMWILL]

So, If God created everything, who created God? How does one single being exist that created all?

Faith is belief in the yet unseen.

Science is a collection proven theories (facts), observations and inferences.

So you say that science is false because it changed its mind? And that God must exist because religion hasn't?

Tomatoes used to be considered poisonous because of a disease that was going around. The world used to be considered flat. The Grateful Dead used to be called The Warlocks.

If you change your mind about something it doesn't mean your wrong instantly. When I see an apple I think "That looks yummy". When I see it has a worm in it I think "eww". Just because I changed my mind doesn't mean I am wrong about if the apple is good or not, because I have made an observation that leads me to believe that if an apple has a worm in it, it isn't good. This can be proven using facts and testing. Religion can't. We can't test that God exists. We can't do things like "Oh lets call God and if he answers he exists". Science can. The whole basis around science is that it's testable. In my view, all ideas are pointless until they can be tested and proven or disproven. So far, we have not yet found a way to test if God exists besides praying, reading a book, and hoping that some sign will tell us what God has responded. Sorry, there is proof that the world is over 6,000 years old, there is proof that humans evolved from primates. There isn't proof that God existed, or that humans lived with dinosaurs and conquered them and used them as a transportation method.

End of story.

[andersbranderud]

I completely agree with the poster above. I believe in the idea of a higher being, but I have yet to see any fool proof
evidence. Because so far, this is an attempt to explain something that will remain unexplained for years to come.

So for now, I'll stick with my own beliefs. As they seem more plausible.

To conclude the proof:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

This is formal logic based on science (for example the scientific principle of causality). Therefore, if you want to be scientific, you have no grounds to reject the above statement.

To all other of the talk-balkers: I do answer common counter arguments here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/ ; see the science-section (left menu).. Scroll through it..

Anders Branderud

[Sage]

Fact: There is a universe.


That's not a fact, that's an assumption. I'm no philosopher but many could debate you on that.

[andersbranderud]

Quote: "Wrong. A heat death of the universe, a
theory which is dependent on universal expansion, was theorized by
Lord Kelvin in 1852. "

My comment: Observations for the accelerating expansion of the universe - year 1998:
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4224.full

Science indeed held the belief of a static universe before 1929.
Google at “static universe” and read texts by reliable sources (for
example peer review articles in scientific journals):
http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=static+universe&submit=yes
I have not read enough about Lord Kelvin to determine what his views
were. But the statement I made was what the majority of scientists
believed.

You wrote: “ Space time is a fold in the fabric of a universe, not an
actual line. We only understand time as linear because we perceive the
third dimension rather than the fourth.

My comment: Time is not a line. And according to science time has a beginning.
http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/definition-of-time.html

“A reaction of atoms is a cause. “ You and no other has offered me no
counter proof to the existence of a Prime Cause. Read my proof. (Read
it in a more formal way in the post posted a quarter ago). Since
time-space has a beginning the Prime Cause can impossibly be atoms.
Atoms exists only in time-space.

“You can't jump from physics to philosophy at random. Give me one
reason to believe your philosophy is anything but baseless opinion. “

My reply: I used formal logic. Answers to some counter arguments – for
example why does the Prime Cause need to be intelligent, found in the
science-section in my blog (scroll until you find it).

Quote: “And the Torah is the word of the creator... how? Why not the Koran or
Dianetics? Because really you are not a scientist or a philosopher
you're just another religious zealot desperately attempting to seem
intelligent. You don't want to convert anyone, you just feed your
superiority complex. If only you didn't just get owned."

My reply: Torah is the only book Instruction book claiming to be from
the Creator not containing logical contradictions.

I wrote: “It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the
universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was
(contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of
rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded
history as well as millennia after Av•râ•hâm′ , Mosh•ëh′ and the
Nәviy•im′ .”

Quran arrived much, much later. Read more in the Christians-page and
the Muslims-page (in the main page) at www.netzarim.co.il to see about
those religions and if their claimed compatibility with Torah is
valid.

Quote: “If only you didn't just get owned.”
My reply: Owned by which arguments? You completely evaded my logical
formal proof. It still stands. I have proved the existence of an
Intelligent Creator and no one has refuted it.

[Sage]

My reply: Torah is the only book Instruction book claiming to be from
the Creator not containing logical contradictions.

This is where you fall flat on your face.

[MykeSoBe]

I see nothing wrong in derepping someone in the debates forum for presenting forth a poorly made argument. There have been a number of people, Ripplemagne for instance, and you yourself Jared, whom I've given positive rep for well-put arguments, even if I disagreed.

If a student fails in school repeatedly yet this student has tried to the best of their effort to achieve, would you criticize them for their poor intelligence? De-repping should only be necessary if someone ends up creating an online fight.

[Sage]

If a student fails in school repeatedly yet this student has tried to the best of their effort to achieve, would you criticize them for their poor intelligence?

Yes. But anywho, to get this topic back on track, I have to ask something.

Theists: Why is it important to prove your God exists at all? Does that not remove the need for faith? It just seems like one big, pointless endeavor to me.

[The Boy Genius]

If there is a creator why is he all knowing? Could he be just a child in another dimension who wandered into his fathers office and pressed a big red Do Not Press button and started a chain reaction. Why are we so worried about god ect., why can't we be pleased we are alive and focus on the world and making it a better place

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i have said this many times, i beleive in god as a force that created life,the universe and everything. not as something that would interfere with our petty struggles.

[MykeSoBe]

To sum it up, I believe in both evolution (only a bit) and creationism. I believe that God isn't human (I'm sure the Catholic Church agrees), and wonder why we address God as "Him." Why am I seemingly twisting around Holy Law? The Roman Catholic Church taught that the earth was in the center of the universe (or at least the solar system), and during the last years of his life, the Church put Galileo under house arrest for his advances in astronomy. But let me tell you this, the universe is just as likely to have come from a divine intelligent creator as having came from "a big bang of infinite properties". Sounds pretty much the same as a divine creation to me.

[Sage]

But let me tell you this, the universe is just as likely to have come from a divine intelligent creator as having came from "a big bang of infinite properties". Sounds pretty much the same as a divine creation to me.

Yes but to think those are the only two possibilities is absurd and a false dichotomy.

[drpepper21]

ouch y'all, can you say flame war?
any-who, i think that most religions have their own stuck up little snots who like to shove their belief down others throats. i personally believe that you can believe whatever you want, as long as you don't fool your self into being so pretentious that you truly believe your way is the only way. every path of religion and life is right, as long as you are truly devoted, and are respectful and treat other religions with dignity.

[Sage]

every path of religion and life is right, as long as you are truly devoted, and are respectful and treat other religions with dignity.

I'd disagree slightly, people should be respected but beliefs in and of themselves don't necessarily warrant respect.

[drpepper21]

I'd disagree slightly, people should be respected but beliefs in and of themselves don't necessarily warrant respect.

well, maybe not respect. at least dignity.

[Sage]

well, maybe not respect. at least dignity.

How would you define the two?

[drpepper21]

respect: to value something, and give it your positive consent

to treat with dignity: to tolerate

[MykeSoBe]

Yes but to think those are the only two possibilities is absurd and a false dichotomy.

Did I say those were the only two possibilities? No. I said that they were both equally likely.

[INFERNO]

So, If God created everything, who created God? How does one single being exist that created all?

Your question answers itself: if god made everything, then god must have made itself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense but that's an answer to the question of what made god. The problem I have with this is that god is supposed to know everything and have everything planned out, which means god must have sat around and thought it all through. This is where the answer in my view gets pretty hairy and ugly.


Science is a collection proven theories (facts), observations and inferences.


Unfortunately your definition of science is incorrect. Scientific theories are not proven nor are they factual since one property of all scientific theories is that they must be falsifiable; if something can be suggested to be incorrect, then it's not proven to be correct nor incorrect, nor is it a fact.


If you change your mind about something it doesn't mean your wrong instantly. When I see an apple I think "That looks yummy". When I see it has a worm in it I think "eww". Just because I changed my mind doesn't mean I am wrong about if the apple is good or not, because I have made an observation that leads me to believe that if an apple has a worm in it, it isn't good. This can be proven using facts and testing. Religion can't. We can't test that God exists. We can't do things like "Oh lets call God and if he answers he exists". Science can. The whole basis around science is that it's testable. In my view, all ideas are pointless until they can be tested and proven or disproven. So far, we have not yet found a way to test if God exists besides praying, reading a book, and hoping that some sign will tell us what God has responded. Sorry, there is proof that the world is over 6,000 years old, there is proof that humans evolved from primates. There isn't proof that God existed, or that humans lived with dinosaurs and conquered them and used them as a transportation method.

Actually, an argument can be made that humans did live and currently do live with dinosaurs. An argument can also be made that we have dominated them. As for using them as a transportation method, that part I don't think a reasonable argument can be made for.

You're right, science revolves around it being testable, however, not all things in science are testable. Take for example neuroscientific research. If we want to figure out what a certain nerve does, we cannot grab a person and go digging away at the nerve. In theory, science is completely testable but in practice, not everything in science is testable mostly due to a lack of technology, ethical issues, legal issues, etc... .

If there is a creator why is he all knowing? Could he be just a child in another dimension who wandered into his fathers office and pressed a big red Do Not Press button and started a chain reaction. Why are we so worried about god ect., why can't we be pleased we are alive and focus on the world and making it a better place

It could very well be a random child-like creator, however, I think part of the reason as to why people would rather have it be an adult-like creator is so the belief doesn't seem, well, childish and that the creator has some reasoning.

With a child-like creator though it implies that there are other creators and would lead into an even bigger fury of philosophical and religious debating than there already is.


Even though there's a chance that he does exist,
Why waste your life in a leap of faith?

While you may not be a believer, society (including you) do rely on faith. It may not be faith in religion but there certainly is an extraordinary amount of faith. For example, if you're going to attend class, you have faith that the teacher or professor is going to show up. You have faith that when you wake up, the police force hasn't gone to shambles and that the police force hasn't said "to hell with this" overnight. You have faith that the milk in your fridge hasn't spoiled or that your headphones haven't "burnt out".

We all can be accused of engaging in a leap of faith, although not all of us can be accused of having this leap towards faith in religion.


The Christian life is not the funnest life to live, unless of course, you're a believer.

I suppose that this would apply to pretty much all religions but then again, is a religion meant to be fun?

To conclude the proof:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.

I'll agree with this.


Fact: There is a universe.

Wrong. This isn't a fact, this a statement that lacks proof and is simply an assumption.


Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

That's how mediocre science works, proof by disproof. In order for you to prove your argument, you're missing one key thing and that is that it must be either A or B but not both. You haven't proven this assumption and since you have not proven this assumption, what you have done is proven A is wrong but have not proven B is right or wrong. Since you haven't proven this assumption, then you allow in your argument for there to be multiple causes.


This is formal logic based on science (for example the scientific principle of causality). Therefore, if you want to be scientific, you have no grounds to reject the above statement.

Actually, if you want to be scientific, you're going to investigate whether or not the logic you gave is rational and whether or not you have proof for your argument in a way that has direct proof. You want to prove B is right, however, you haven't proven B isn't wrong or is right. All you have done is prove A is wrong. In other words, you have a horribly weak, indirect, non-scientific proof that is lacking the fundamental assumption it needs to have any backbone.

[The Boy Genius]

Religion is away of controlling the masses making them follow blindly and do anything you say. It is almost as much as tool of oppression as it is liberation, religion is to give workers hope so they work harder. It banns almost all thought outside of a minuscule square and if you go out side of it you go to hell.

[INFERNO]

Religion is away of controlling the masses making them follow blindly and do anything you say. It is almost as much as tool of oppression as it is liberation, religion is to give workers hope so they work harder. It banns almost all thought outside of a minuscule square and if you go out side of it you go to hell.

You're associating the term religion with Christianity only. Sadly, there are many other religions that don't condemn one to hell or heaven, nor do they all require you to follow blindly. Christianity doesn't require you to follow blindly, it's the choice of the person to do so just as it is a choice to not believe in it at all.

[andersbranderud]

Inferno wrote: Re: the existence of the universe: “Wrong. This isn't a fact, this a statement that lacks proof and is simply an assumption. ”

It is a scientific premise that ALL of physical science is built on.
Please read this post to learn more about burden of proof: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html
You have the burden of proof to prove that the universe does not exist.

You say that the logical argumentation I present are not valid. This website shows your statement to be wrong: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm

To y'all: Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

[Sage]

Inferno wrote: Re: the existence of the universe: “Wrong. This isn't a fact, this a statement that lacks proof and is simply an assumption. ”

It is a scientific premise that ALL of physical science is built on.
Please read this post to learn more about burden of proof: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html
You have the burden of proof to prove that the universe does not exist.

You say that the logical argumentation I present are not valid. This website shows your statement to be wrong: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm

To y'all: Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

Good gods stop linking to offsite articles. This isn't a fucking boardroom meeting. The existence of the universe is an assumption and science is built on that assumption because it has not yet failed us. You still have not yet proved your specific God to exist. At best, you're arguing for the existence of some sort of higher power, which people will simply believe in or not believe in. You have not presented any reason so far as to why this hypothetical higher power is your God.

[CaptainObvious]

Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.

This single assumption is unsupported and contradicts your assumption that God exists in this universe.

Further, even if you conclude this incredibly weak argumentation to provide evidence for a God, in spite of its weakness, you still have not proved anything about your God.

[INFERNO]

It is a scientific premise that ALL of physical science is built on.
Please read this post to learn more about burden of proof: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html

First, giving me evidence that's from a petty blog I'm dismissing because there's no way to be sure it's credible. Second, if you wish to explain something, then I want YOU to explain it, I don't want a link to some random website. If you quote something then explain it while giving the link, I'm fine with that.


You have the burden of proof to prove that the universe does not exist.

LOL. Logic and science require the assumption that a universe exists yet you want me to use logic and science to prove that the assumption is false. That makes no sense using the method you want because the end result would be destroying the assumption that the method I used to destroy that assumption was based on. Does it make any sense? No. Furthermore, you should actually read the response you're quoting. I said it was an ASSUMPTION not a fact.


You say that the logical argumentation I present are not valid. This website shows your statement to be wrong: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reductio.htm


While the website you gave may be more credible than the petty blog you gave, I want you to explain your reasoning. Giving a random website and nothing else isn't reasoning, it's just pasting a link. Also, the link says numerous things it's hard to identify what exactly it is you're referring to.

Lastly, you've failed at yet another thing: proving your god exists. Throughout all this random pasting of links and writing posts, you still haven't proven this. You've gone off on random tangents and I'm not sure if the goal of what you set out to do in this thread is lost.

[boy.on.laptop]

For me as a christian I can't believe the lengths people go to just to prove the existant of God. The truth is if there was absoutle truth we wouldn't "believe" in God we would all know he exists. I believe in God and I believe I have had a spiritual experience with him. Sometimes I think christians focus way too much on trying to prove God's existance rather than following the word of the bible and actually helping those in need and when appropiate introducing them to a relationship with God.

Religion is away of controlling the masses making them follow blindly and do anything you say. It is almost as much as tool of oppression as it is liberation, religion is to give workers hope so they work harder. It banns almost all thought outside of a minuscule square and if you go out side of it you go to hell.

Yes that is why all christians agree with each other and you never find christians on the side of workers. Hmmm FDR, Michael Joseph Savage & John Curtin to name a few....