Here is a question for all. It places the BoP on any who seek to address it?
What the better explanation for the origin of the universe? God or Nothing?
Posts
Total:
47
-->
@Tradesecret
This is a blatant strawman, and it misrepresents the scientific model of the universe without god supports. We are not sure why the big bang happened, but that does not mean that god did it. Declaring that is a god of the gaps fallacy
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a blatant strawman, and it misrepresents the scientific model of the universe without god supports. We are not sure why the big bang happened, but that does not mean that god did it. Declaring that is a god of the gaps fallacy
That is a weak response. I am not asking you to suggest that God did it. I am asking you to prove what you think happened. And the burden of proof is on you to prove that position. It is an absurdity to fall into a heap everytime someone raises it and cry out "god of the gaps fallacy'.
We are here. That is a fact. It did not just happen in a testtube. Please give a reasonable explanation as to how it happened?
I don't even agree with the god of the gaps fallacy. It is a strawman ALWAYS put up by atheists against theists. It is a dumb one.
-->
@Tradesecret
My point is, we don't know, and claiming, "Nothing did it" Isn't at all a reasonable position, it's a false dichotomy. And I could care less if you disagree with the gods of the gaps, you just asserted that it was a dumb one, provide your reasoning.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem with claiming we (you) don't know is that we (you) can't claim naturalistic evolution. Just allowing for the mere possibility of a creator places a huge problem for those who claim science disproves any aspect of theism including biblical creation.
No, it doesn't, we know the big bang was what caused the universe, we don't know what caused the big bang, that's it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The secular (atheist/agnostic) community is so paranoid over the prospect of creation that they can't even handle the idea of intelligent design.
You don't think there's politics involved in the evolution/creation issue?
I suppose there is, but the point isn't what we are paranoid over, it is what the truth is. The fact is, we do not know what caused the big bang, to asert it was god, is a god of the gaps fallacy, an assumption. Until there is valid evidence that a god caused the big bang, that is all it will be.
I suppose there is, but it's not relevant. There is no valid evidence supporting creationism. Whereas literally most of modern biology is based on evolution.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that if God ignited a big bang, we still can't attach any scientific method to how God created the avenue for the creation of the universe. We can only say "ex-nihilo". And that leaves us with endless possibilities in terms of our existence.
And ultimate truth cannot really be the objective unless one is willing to accept the idea that man is in a bad condition needing redemption. That's the problem with (for lack of a better term) "theism". We have to be open to the possibility that each of us are accountable to a creator.
And ultimate truth cannot really be the objective unless one is willing to accept the idea that man is in a bad condition needing redemption. That's the problem with (for lack of a better term) "theism". We have to be open to the possibility that each of us are accountable to a creator.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Not if there is no evidence of this "god". Before I would give that proposition any weight, one must demonstrate it. I'm open to any proposition, but you have to demonstrate it first. If you want to convince me that their is a god, I actually have a forum topic for exactly that.
-->
@Tradesecret
Within the context of the silly question, the obviously better choice would be something loosely referred to as GOD or BOB or DAVE or BIG BANGO or whatever.
Though it would be foolish to think that this proved anything other than acceptance of something.
Something is something and nothing is nothing.
As I said, the question is silly. And simply states the obvious..... That is to say, something from nothing.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you open to the idea that you can find out for yourself?
If the formula for finding out if God exists requires complete personal effort, then anything else would be a waste of time. Asking me to prove it to you is like asking me to prove to you that being in Hawaii is like being in paradise. That would require you to take the necessary action in buying a plane ticket.
If you're for some reason against the idea of Hawaii being a paradise (that mere photos and film don't give credit to), don't go there, and keep asking for people to prove it to you while you remain in New Jersey, or wherever.
If the formula for finding out if God exists requires complete personal effort, then anything else would be a waste of time. Asking me to prove it to you is like asking me to prove to you that being in Hawaii is like being in paradise. That would require you to take the necessary action in buying a plane ticket.
If you're for some reason against the idea of Hawaii being a paradise (that mere photos and film don't give credit to), don't go there, and keep asking for people to prove it to you while you remain in New Jersey, or wherever.
-->
@RoderickSpode
What? A proposition should not require that, if a proposition is true, one should be able to explain it to another rationally. I have explored the evidence and found it all uncompelling or simply fallacious.
Just so you know, I was a Christian for the first 14 years of my life, it was by trying to get closer with the proposed deity that I became an atheist.
-->
@Theweakeredge
When you read the Old Testament, do you perceive Yahweh to be evil like a number of members here think?
If I were using my own morality to judge that god then yes, that god would be evil. That god supposedly killed millions for nothing more than what he saw as evil action. Even though it would be perfectly within an omnipotent's gods power to simply teach them the right way. You know considering that apparently the apple that was supposed to teach us about good and evil didn't work.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then you may be experiencing an internal conflict. You might be open to the existence of an impersonal deistic God, but not the God of the bible.
In other words, on one hand you're open to a creator's existence, but on the other hand not open to a creator's existence if the creator turns out to be the God of the bible.
If someone doesn't want the biblical God's existence to be reality, then they can avoid it by ignoring what the bible says (the formula), and just continue to demand evidence on discussion forums.
In other words, on one hand you're open to a creator's existence, but on the other hand not open to a creator's existence if the creator turns out to be the God of the bible.
If someone doesn't want the biblical God's existence to be reality, then they can avoid it by ignoring what the bible says (the formula), and just continue to demand evidence on discussion forums.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Wrong again. I am open to ANY claim such there is proper and valid evidence that supports that claim. I require evidence to justify ANY god, I simply point out that the god of the bible is a particularly nasty interpretation of god.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that if God/Creator exists, you're looking right at evidence every day. Wouldn't you agree?
Another problem is that no matter who the creator is, even if impersonal, they would all be nasty by your interpretation. No matter who the creator is, there's still earthquakes, murders, starvation, etc.
Would you agree that a creator would have to be evil (nasty) by virtue of creating an environment where people die?
-->
@RoderickSpode
The problem is that if God/Creator exists, you're looking right at evidence every day. Wouldn't you agree?
That is a profound statement RoderickSpode.
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a blatant strawman
Of course it is. She can create a strawman argument at the drop of an hat.
I supposed it comes with all of her training and alleged qualifications as A Lawyer, and A Pastor and A Chaplin #20
-->
@RoderickSpode
No not really, I look for the most powerful arguments every once in a while, but no new evidence has been found for months, though I do look fairly often. I still have not found valid evidence of god. I suppose yes, any god that did exist would have to be inherently evil to create such an environment, but this doesn't really provide an argument against a god, simply a reason to doubt one cares.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Asking me to prove it to you is like asking me to prove to you that being in Hawaii is like being in paradise. That would require you to take the necessary action in buying a plane ticket.
TWO. Two plane tickets. Otherwise how ever are you going to compare one known place that you can visits with the other place that no one alive as ever seen and only exists in the imaginations of the cretinous that could also believe that Santa's Elves this year will all be furloughed so Christmas is cancelled?
Your silly comparisons get more ridiculous by the minute.
-->
@Tradesecret
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.
This is assuming that atheists are begging the question, which is false, no the position of an atheist is that no evidence presented thus far (thus far referring to the current state of affairs) has been valid. If one can demonstrate valid proof that god exists, I would change my mind.
Thus far, there has been none I find convincing.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.
Now you are quite literally begging the question, you are presuming your conclusion in your premise. There is a fundamental flaw in the way you see the burden of proof and how evidence should change our mind.
Essentially: I do not discount evidence for god because I am an atheist, I examine each piece of evidence to see if it is valid, sound, logically consistent, etc... That is exactly how theists should look through the evidence for a god, not presume one's existence, but check to see if any evidence established is sound, valid, logically consistent, etc..
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.
1, 2, 3, 4, assertions have been made. That means you have necessarily adopted a burden of proof. Please demonstrate how a god exists, how humans are proof of god, how evil is proof of god, and how atheists are proof of god.
For your note: An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. Take that as you will.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
You, yourself admitted that whenever you looked at the evidence, you were committing a logical fallacy! How then, could one come to the conclusion that your proofs are at all evidential or valid?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just so you know, I was a Christian for the first 14 years of my life, it was by trying to get closer with the proposed deity that I became an atheist.
That's interesting. What caused your doubt and caused you to be an atheist? Was it that you actually read the scriptures for yourself without being told things like " you are suffering with internal turmoil and emotional conflict, and that it will pass"?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Specifically, it was the internal inconsistencies of the bible, that the tellings of the bible did not match what was objectively true, I also chided under the blatant immorality it was spewing. As a gay teen, I find the verse saying I should be stoned and that I am an abomination, particularly uncompelling. Not to mention the creation story, the flood myth, the tower of babel. So many things were incorrect within the bible that I started to completely reconsider my biases. It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What caused your doubt and caused you to be an atheist?Specifically, it was the internal inconsistencies of the bible, that the tellings of the bible did not match what was objectively true, I also chided under the blatant immorality it was spewing. As a gay teen, I find the verse saying I should be stoned and that I am an abomination, particularly uncompelling. Not to mention the creation story, the flood myth, the tower of babel. So many things were incorrect within the bible that I started to completely reconsider my biases. It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
Well that is pretty much the whole book. I am still waiting for a certain Lawyer, and Pastor and Chaplin #20 to create a thread that shows "god" in a good light other than the bad light that the bible clearly shows "god" to be and that the biblical god himself claims to be.
It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
Well at least out of the bad came some good. And good for you.
I highly doubt this universe would be here without me.
It.
It , couldn't of been hear before me.
This is a perc of being a atheist.
Orrrr because I'm not smart enough to grasp the TOE.
-->
@Tradesecret
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
Amen Tradesecret!
-->
@Theweakeredge
No not really, I look for the most powerful arguments every once in a while, but no new evidence has been found for months, though I do look fairly often. I still have not found valid evidence of god. I suppose yes, any god that did exist would have to be inherently evil to create such an environment, but this doesn't really provide an argument against a god, simply a reason to doubt one cares.
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Specifically, it was the internal inconsistencies of the bible, that the tellings of the bible did not match what was objectively true, I also chided under the blatant immorality it was spewing. As a gay teen, I find the verse saying I should be stoned and that I am an abomination, particularly uncompelling. Not to mention the creation story, the flood myth, the tower of babel. So many things were incorrect within the bible that I started to completely reconsider my biases. It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
It's not just homosexuality that brought on a death penalty. Pretty much most of us here would be potential candidates for harsh punishment. You're not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The invitation to receive God's grace is as much open to you as anyone else.
But anyway, I understand the conflict as far as Christianity and homosexuality is concerned. I would say the reason why there are Christian churches, or Christian individuals
who identify as being gay is because they know God is love. Some might see it as a struggle. Some may have a difficult time resolving between God's love for them, and God's stance against homosexuality. But it all boils down to it being between us individually, and God. That time will come for all of us.
Homosexuality is not meant to be a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is. What I mean by that is, sex is only a small part of a marriage union. There comes a time when a couple grows old enough to the point they may not have the ability to engage in sexual activity. But the union between the two is to be as strong as it was on the wedding day. That's love. Since same sex marriage is a major issue, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life with one partner of the same sex until the day one of you passes on?
Even at a young age, the marriage vow implies that faithfulness is mandatory. If not, it's not love. Or certainly not ultimate love. If a wife or husband has an unfortunate accident or illness that renders them incapable of sexual activity, the marriage vow still suggests sexual faithfulness. Even if the person who is no longer able to perform sexually tells their spouse they understand their physical needs, and it's okay to find a sex partner, the ultimate act of love would still demand complete faithfulness. If you were in a same sex union, would you be able to remain faithful should something unfortunate happen to your partner?
If you think homosexuality is a lifestyle, then probably not.