Christfolyfe,

I am a Christian too. But I don't think you're going to get responses that are positive here. It's not exclusively the atheist's job to prove that God is not real. Neither is it exclusively the theist's job to prove God is real. We both have the burden of proof on showing our view of God to be true.

~P-Dunn

Hmm, prove that God is not real, that would be like proving ghosts are not real. Now here is a harder one, prove that God and the Bible are real.

[quote=Christfolyfe] Sup yall my name is Desmond and I am 17, new here I heard about this stuff on tv. Now I am a christian and have been one for like all my life. I've met alot of ppl of different faiths and beliefs but this atheist thing has gotten to me today.I am gonna say this, I am no perfect christian as no one is but I know God exists and I know Christ is God for certain. You hear about people saying you can't see em you can't smell em and you can't touch him so he's not real but let me ask you this can you see the planet Mars? [/quote]

Yes. Not just pictures. It is visible at various points in our orbit. Approximately 6 years ago was one such time, and I had to write a paper on it :)

[quote]Can you touch the planet mars?[/quote] Yes & No. There are things which can touch it. I cannot because I have not gotten on a rocketship there, but theoretically, it is possible.
[quote]and lastly can you smell the planet?[/quote] Again, same.

[quote]All these questions would be answered no. You may say you seen pictures well same thing with God I can say I heard him talk to me doesn't make it false or true.[/quote]
The difference is I COULD do the above. You cannot do thus with 'God'

[quote]To say there's no God is saying that without reason why?[/quote]
I have plenty of reasons.

Firstly, when making a statement of the truth of a given proposition, one must provide evidence. I cannot PROVE, beyond any doubt, that there is no generic 'god', namely because the generic 'god' can be fit to almost any definition(the loosest example being Einsteinian 'god', nature). However, by looking at any God Theory with any sort of qualities, I can look at the viability of those qualities. For example, Epicurus' Riddle. Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience are not compatible. The existence of all three are incompatible with our world which has very much easily preventable(or simply non-creatable danger).

Secondly, I see no evidence for God's existence. Each reason a god is needed to explain has fallen to science, and while maybe one day science will lead to the conclusion of God, science and logic are the best methods we have for obtaining truth. At the moment, the world can be explained without appeals to a divine being, and I shall remain on that logical platform. Until positive propositions are put forth, there is no more evidence for a god than for the tooth fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Krishna and Shiva, or the Greek Pantheon.

[quote]Because let me ask you this? Do you know anyone or anything that was created from nothing?[/quote] You're asking the wrong question. Do you know anyone or anything that was created period? Things can change form, but as for the 'creation' of matter, we are referring to the beginning of the space-time continuum. To ask what happened BEFORE the beginning of time is simply an impossible proposition, as the idea of 'happening' implies both existence and passage of time. The simplest possible explanation I can think of is this: Long, long, long ago, 'Nothing' exploded, scattering its prime components, matter and anti-matter. I am by no means a physicist, and I do not claim this to be knowledge in the highest form. I do not know where the Big Bang sprung from. And I'm not afraid to claim that I lack such knowledge. But I will not ascribe any given solution to that question unless I have evidence for it.

[quote]If you do I'd love to see it, it seems illogical to think that all this we have happened by chance.[/quote]

You're misunderstanding the laws of the universe. To say 'by chance' is to grossly misstate the truth. For example, when you drop a rock, it falls down. Not by chance, it does, and always will do that because that is the way the universe works. Secondly(and I assume you are referring to evolution) Evolution also does not work by chance. Things which are better suited to propagate themselves tend to do just that. Say for example there was a game of basketball. I shall take on Michael Jordan. Obviously, I will not win. Perhaps 1/1000000000 times, I will get extremely lucky, be completely on fire, sink every basket, and rise up from my 5'7" to dunk(I wish). This does not mean it is chance. The same holds true for evolution. A slightly more apt organism, over much time, statistically, will propagate itself better. This does not mean that every animal of the species will, just on average. As statistics tells us, while individuals vary greatly, averages tend to find the mean quite quickly(in fact, a survery of 1500 people is accurate to +/- 3% even if the size of the population it estimates is a trillion(or any number) of people). If on average, the individuals do better, the species will do better(or even not the species, just the subspecies which contains more potent qualities,such as a slightly longer tail. As for the formation of complex organs, gradual additions are good enough to build up from something small, into more complexity. This is seen in eyes. Many animals have light sensitive spots, but cannot 'see' this progresses all the way up(not to our eye) but to the hawks, which can see a bug clearly from hundreds of feet away. The eye is not perfect, however. It has blind spots, it has inefficiencies, and most strangely, it seems to build upon the past eye models. This is most clealry accented in the hands, which across most species, have the same archaic structure, suggesting homology(same ancestry).

[quote]You may say with all the bad things in the world how can God allow it? Well he's not your babysitter, He's not gonna save everyone from certain doom. Life will go on and He will not stop it.[/quote] This rules him out as omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent God would stop all evils. This is not to say a God does not exist, just that if there is one, he's not completely loving/nice. However, my specialty is in the more scientific, logician style arguments, as those are more concrete. My conclusion, therefore, will refer to my prior two arguments. As we haev a method of finding out how the world works, we ought use that method. Faith, on the other hand, is not very useful for determining outcomes, as faith canbe held in anything, the flip of a coin, for example. It may be correct sometimes, it may be incorrect sometimes, but it is not the right method for determining truths. [/quote]

[quote]I would like to hear anything from you guys if you would want to say somethin about how God does not exist and I will try my best to answer you. I am starting my own group against this atheist rising. Wanna be rational... let's get rational ;)[/quote]

On the other hand, I would like to thank you for coming on to this forum and being civil. It's quite refreshing. On average, I get 3 or 4 hate messages from random people weekly, and FAR more emails, and I am not a high-profile atheist. I can only imagine the stress on such people as Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins(or even our own Rook Hawkins or Brian Sapient). This, the earnest discussion of ideas between people of differing values, is part of what the Freethinker movement is about. Perhaps there is a God(although, do not let this mislead you into thinking I think it likely, or even possible in terms of probability), but if there is, we should be led to it through logic and science, not archaic faiths. I would like to make a comment that perhaps your group should not be against the atheist movement. Movements which are anti-movement tend to have little value, instead, a movement about determinin the truth, promoting honest, rational discussion, and an open environment are far more important to the advancement of man and society.

God cannot exist becuase he would contridict himself. If he is omnipotent and omniscient I see no motive behind creating anything or doing anything. I also have have I list of 27 fallacies against God:

I. Omnipotence v.s. Omniscience.

1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?

Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.

II. Omnipotence v.s. Limits.

Can God become more powerful?

Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.

III. Omnipotence & Omniscience v.s. Omnibenevolence & Free Will.

1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.

#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent

IV. Occam's Razor.

1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.

V. Transcendence v.s. Creation.

1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.

VI. Wants.

1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.

VII. The Quick Fix.

1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.

VIII. The Disproportionate Hell.

1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.

IX. Perfection.

1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.

X. Hume's Dictum.

1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.

XI. God, the Dictator.

1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.

XII. Excepting of Christ.

1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.

XIII. The Unremarkable Planet.

1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?

XIV. The Sadomasochistic God.

1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic

XV. Picking and Chosing.

Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?

XVI. Telephone.

The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?

XVII. Tech v.s. Religion.

The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.

XVII. The Myth Cycle.

Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?

XIX. The Burden of Proof.

1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.

XX. Can God Guess?

1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.

XXI. Can God violate his Omnibenevolence?

Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.

XXII. Pain in Heaven.

Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.

XXIII. Skyhook.

Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.

XIV. The Soul?

A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
B. Occam's Razor
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
C. The Pyramid
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
D. Dissection
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
If its transparent shouldn't it float away, or is it anchored to the body. Yet, if it is anchored to the body, what releases it at death?
E. Transcendence v.s. Control
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
F. The Universes Eternal Memory
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?

XV. The Grand Unified Theory.

The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.

XVI. A Cyclic Universe

The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.

XVII. The Demolition.

Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
All the Gold in China- Is absurd. Have you searched the universe to determine there is no unicorns, or no Thor?
Because the Bible Says So- If that was true I could write a book saying I'm God. And I would be God.

After these ideas have been eliminated there leaves only one theistic argument left. "You've Just Gotta Have Faith."
Point one.- While I could just have faith in God. Atheism is an equally appealing thing to have faith in. What makes yours more worthy to have faith in?
Point two- Your going to trust possibly the most important thing ever, where we came from and will go, not to science and reason, but to faith?!
Point three- Gods existence is equal to the existence of a rhino in a shoe box. You do not know for sure if there's a rhino in your unopened shoe box or not, but you'd have to be insane to believe that there is. With all the small space and scarcity of rhinos in a shoe box, its hard to believe in it. What makes God any different? His twenty six other fallacies are even greater than the ones of a rhino in a shoe box. The chance that a rhino is in fact in a shoe box is higher than the chance that God exists. So believing in him is like believing there is in fact a rhino in your shoe box.
The less validity an idea has is equal to its number of fallacys. With 27 fallacys against God and two (size and scaricity of a rhino) against the idea of a shino in a shoebox we can determine it is more plausible to find a rhino in your next shoe box than god existing. As all fallacys are imposibilitys and one idea cannot be more impossible than another, though you cannot disprove God per se, you can reduce his probability of existance to almost nothing.

LOL did i really type prove that the bible is real? LOLOLOLOL

[quote=Guruite]Yes, eloquently spoken.

Weird, I do not get any hate mail and I do not know anyone in person who does

(This is just a first, as I never really considered that people would have the time to write hate mail to people who are not celebrities or in high profile... I mean now that I think about it, I think that people would... it just never dawned on me)

But yeah, hate mail is a waste of time...[/quote]

I really wondered, how much of a loser can you be to seek random people out to send them hae mail when you don't know anything about them other than their religious beliefs. I used to take each one personally, and respond in a logical format, but you only get more emotion in repsonse. It's a waste of time, so now I just click and delete. But maybe the reason I get more is my email address and screenname for everything is agnosticatheist followed by a number

[quote]but why did he save the Jews from Egypt (supposvily). But he didnt during the Holocaust.[/quote]

Hitler had chariots of iron and he wouldn't take frogs, locusts, and firstborn children seriously...

[quote]I am starting my own group against this atheist rising.[/quote]

Good luck, The republicans got first dibs

*chuckles* fine... Panzer tanks... but the similarities are still there

[quote]That is false PDunn. The positive assertion bears the burden of proof.[/quote]

No, PDunn is right. The burdan of proof lies on whoever makes the [b]initial[/b] assertion.

If someone comes to me and says God does not exist, then I' going to ask them to prove it. If they can I assume they are just blowing smoke. One the other hand if I tell someone God does exist, I expect that they will ask me to prove it.

So, yea the burdan of proof can be on either side, depending on the situation. Although this being a predominently athiest board I would say the burdan of proof is generally with us here.

Here is a whammy. please, think about this.

NOBODY HAS ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF!

So why should I waste any time assuming a conclusion?

You miss my point. I really want to know why I should care. It is called the Statement of Case, and belongs in the intro paragraph of all argument papers. Only then could you possibly convince me.

[quote]You miss my point. I really want to know why I should care. It is called the Statement of Case, and belongs in the intro paragraph of all argument papers. Only then could you possibly convince me.[/quote]

I really don't have an answer for you, I think that believing in a religion could make some people happy but i really don't know

I wouldn't say most... A couple would, I wonder (and this is just a thought) - Would many people become violent if we did find some proof that god did not exist? I mean just hypothetically if humankind found proof that god did exist... well then we would have a bunch of stupid looking atheists and (as far as I know...) we would all bow our heads in submission and accept (that is if there was extreme undeniable proof)

But if we found proof to the contrary... if we found proof to convert any theist (I know that it is impossible... but just for the sake of argument) that god is not real...
would it cause violence as religious people abandoned their beliefs as well as their morality? As far as I know, most atheists have a moral system to guide their actions... but many religions have said that we cannot be moral without a belief in god (obviously the current atheist population can) but what would happen to the middle east conflict? I doubt it would cease as they realized that they were fighting for silly relics...

I don't mean to be insulting or demeaning, but if we did find proof of no god... would violence increase among the religious fundamentalists? would they abandon their moral system?

fine then. The intial assertion must have been that there was a god. Someone could not deny the existence of gods before somebody had come up with the concept of a god.

Why should anyone care about any of this? I think an open theist could agree that organized religion is crap. There may be a God (How on earth could I possibly know?) but I think any rational person can understand that the organizations that control religion are complete and utter bullcrap.

I thought the open was short for open minded. Sorry about the confusion. See, open- minded people would need some good reasons to think such obviously false things are true.

My comment is to point out that the topic is frivolous. It is impossible to prove non-existence. But why should I care? State why your case has value, no matter what you say. My contribution has value because I could save a couple people some time, in case you are wondering.

[quote]I. Omnipotence v.s. Omniscience.

1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?

Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.[/quote]
[quote]Premise 2 revolves around the assumption that the future can be known. As an open theist, I disagree.[/quote] Does not time move in a linear fasion? We live our lives from one moment to the next, so the future could in fact be knowable based on present situations.

Another example: God knows he will pick a white shirt, can he pick a red instead?

[quote]Can God become more powerful?

Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.[/quote]
[quote]This is an incoherent question. To ask if someone that is all-powerful already to become more powerful is a self-contradictory request, and therefore, this argument fails.[/quote]
I understand but in order to become all powerful , one would have to have the ability to become more powerful.

[quote]IV. Occam's Razor.

1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.[/quote]
Of course, premise one seriously begs the question.

[quote]Without God, the Big Bang is an explosion out of nothing for no reason. Naturalistic chemical and macroevolution all go back to flimsy theories of abiogenesis, which is life sponteously appearing from nonlife, hundreds of proteins sequencing themselves, etc. The odds are so against this that it has prompted scientists to invent theories out of thin air saying that aliens did it. You're telling me this somehow eliminates the need for God?[/quote] Is it to unreasonable for you to believe that universe always was and will be, you believe god is? What if reality just [i]is[/i].

[quote]V. Transcendence v.s. Creation.

1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.[/quote]
[quote]Wait, wait, wait. Premise 3 does not logically follow from 2, and therefore the conclusion is false. You're going to first have to demonstrate how not having a physical existence somehow prohibits something from creating.[/quote]
How can something non-physical create something physical?

[quote]VI. Wants.

1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.[/quote]
[quote]I disagree with two. You're telling me that something that is perfect [i]cannot do something[/i], and that makes no sense at all.[/quote]
A perfect being can do whatever he/she/it want, but why would they have the urge to do so when they have already reached perfection? A perfect being would have no ambition and therefore no need to create or do anything at all.
[quote]VII. The Quick Fix.

1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.[/quote]
[quote]First, tell me what your standard is in defining "evil." Is evil...oh, I don't know, pain like you get when you stub your toe? Is evil calling someone a name? Is evil punching someone? Is evil stabbing someone?

Second, tell me how you came to the conclusion that something is "evil" or "good." If you believe in objective morality, explain how this is possible without God. If you don't believe in objective morality, explain why I should care about what your definition of "evil" is, and why you have a problem with me doing any of these things I've mentioned above to you.

Thirdly, [i]please[/i] explain how God could stop any of those without affecting free will.[/quote] There are universal evils and goods. You and I could agree that torturing people and animals, violating someones rights, and breaking a promise would be considered immorally. No matter where one comes from, every culture could agree that many of the same things are considered wrong.

[quote]VIII. The Disproportionate Hell.

1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.[/quote]
[quote]I disagree with three and four.

If you are naming Hell as a fiery inferno where you burn for all eternity, I reject that hyperliteral interpretation. Hell is merely a state of seperation.

With four, all your giving me is your own opinion. Why should I care?[/quote]
Would not a state of seperation be considered punishment, like solitary confinment?
[quote]IX. Perfection.

1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.[/quote]
[quote]Of course, a dishwasher doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not he wants to limit his creation.

If we were "perfect" then we would be equal to God. Do you understand the problem with God wanting to create creatures that equal him? God is infinite, and there cannot be two infinite beings simultaneous.[/quote] According to christianity we are all god's children, do not all parents want their children to be better than them? Why would god limit us so if he loved us so much? It interferes with free will, because I am not perfect.

[quote]X. Hume's Dictum.

1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.[/quote]
[quote]Is Hume's Dictum a physical thing?[/quote]Are the bible's teachings and lessons physical things?

[quote]XI. God, the Dictator.

1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.[/quote]
[quote]Premise One is a severe oversimplification. He doesn't punish someone for not following him...He punishes them for [i]sin[/i]. If you're going to complain that God punishes unjustly, you're going to have to demonstrate it.[/quote]Isn't not following god a sin? Blasphemy is a sin, and in blaspheming you are not following god. If I am not mistaken god has killed many people for blasphemy.

[quote]XII. Excepting of Christ.

1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.[/quote]
[quote]You seem to forget that if Christians were all doing our jobs, Premise Three would not be true. Jesus told us all to go out into the world and witness, and because we don't, there are consequences. God isn't going to come down and clean up our messes. That doesn't make him non-omnibenevolent.

Premise Four is debateable. Some disagree.[/quote]Wouldn't preaching to people and telling them what to believe a violation of our so called free will?

[quote]XIII. The Unremarkable Planet.

1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?[/quote]
[quote]Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Firstly, you have no evidence for Premise One. If, in fact, there is intelligent life out there as you say in Two, what's to say that God hasn't shown himself to them?

Secondly, you seem to assume that length of time = value. This is a very hasty assumption.[/quote] Why would god not present to us his other "children"?

[quote]XVI. Telephone.

The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?[/quote]
[quote]Patches, have you ever read anything about how the Bible was transmitted? I mean seriously. Do you really believe that it was just like telephone, or were you just using that example to make your terrible point less terrible?

We have 24,000 manuscripts dating within 100 years of the authorship of the New Testament to compare. We see that these manuscripts are largely the same as the ones we have now. In fact, the percent reliability in transmission is 99.5%, and none of the .5% error affects any critical doctrine of Christianity. Most of the discrepancies are typos between manuscripts.[/quote]
Who's to say yopu have all of the transcripts for the bible. Is it not possible that some thing could go wrong during translations?

[quote]XVII. Tech v.s. Religion.

The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.[/quote]
[quote]Demonstrate, please.[/quote]
Campare the amount of religious people now to the amount during the middle ages. As people become less ignorant they lose religious faith.
[quote]XVII. The Myth Cycle.

Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?[/quote]
[quote]Well, lots of things.

First, what do you mean by "myth?" Secondly, can you give me an example of one being "scientifically disproven" so I can understand further what you are talking about?[/quote]
Myth is normally portrayed as an explanation of the origin of life and other such things; Greek Mythology. You dismiss the thought of Zuess without a second thought, so what is diferent about you god?

[quote]XIX. The Burden of Proof.

1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.[/quote]
[quote]There are arguments from literally hundreds of philosophers from many, many different religions that give evidence for God. I'm sure you've dealt with all of them, right?[/quote]
Is there any physical proof?

[quote]XXII. Pain in Heaven.

Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.[/quote]
[quote]In Heaven, there would be no reason to cause anyone else pain. I'm sure it's theoretically possible, but nobody would want to.[/quote]
I'm sure someone would. There would be disagreements in heaven I'm sure.

[quote]XIV. The Soul?

A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).[/quote]
[quote]Hmm. I'm assuming you meant the 1st law, which says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Of course, the soul is a non-physical thing which wouldn't apply to any law of thermodynamics.[/quote]
Then how could is interact with a physical object.

[quote]B. Occam's Razor
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?[/quote]
[quote]Because there is more to life than chemicals. If that weren't true, you could throw a bunch of skin and bones together and create a living human. That's not the way things work, though.[/quote]
Thats is a bad example. You need living tissue and all the components to sustain human life. And we can create parts of humans; new heart tissue and such

[quote]D. Dissection
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?[/quote]
[quote]Once again, the soul is non-physical.[/quote] And once agains how can a non-physical object interact with a physical one?

[quote]If its transparent shouldn't it float away, or is it anchored to the body. Yet, if it is anchored to the body, what releases it at death?[/quote]
[quote]What's your argument, patches?[/quote]
Is our soul anchored in our bodies or is it loosly atached to the body, alowing it to float away?

[quote]E. Transcendence v.s. Control
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?[/quote]
[quote]We cannot see or physically feel the laws of logic, or mathematical laws either, and as you said, 2+2 will never equal 5.[/quote]
But we can put it to practical use.

[quote]F. The Universes Eternal Memory
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?[/quote]
[quote]I think that in Heaven, we don't remember our previous life. I'm not exactly sure, though.[/quote]
Well then what would be the point of living in the first place?

[quote]XV. The Grand Unified Theory.

The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.[/quote]
[quote]Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. Are you treating the universe as a whole as a concious being that makes decisions?[/quote]
No, just that everything happens in a linear fashion, and all past actions make us make desicions based on that.

[quote]XVI. A Cyclic Universe

The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.[/quote]
[quote]I seem to recall you saying: "The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or [b]always existed[/b] is unthinkable." The universe is extraordinarily complex. So why are you telling me that the universe always existing is somehow feasible, when God always existing is "unthinkable?" Double standard, huh?

Besides, there are many arguments against an actually infinite universe. For example, there would be no more energy by now, since according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we are constantly losing energy. Also, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would be the end of an actually infinite set, and that's impossible. Also, today would have never arrived in the first place, seeing as after each day that passed, there would always be an [i]infinite[/i] amount of days after that.

An infinite universe is impossible, and it contradicts all of the evidence that the universe had a beginning. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is cycling or infinite.[/quote]
As I already said, reality just [i]is[/i].

[quote]Point one.- While I could just have faith in God. Atheism is an equally appealing thing to have faith in. What makes yours more worthy to have faith in?[/quote]
[quote]Because with Christianity, our lives have purpose. With atheism, your life and the lives of every individual on this earth have absolutely no ultimate significance.

As W.L. Craig said, even if the evidence for Christianity and atheism was absolutely equal, the rational one would choose Christianity, merely because it gives purpose to our lives.[/quote]
That is not true. I don't about other atheists but my "ultimate
signifigance" is that someday I may contribute to the betterment of mankind. Is that such and insignificant thing to want to do?

[quote]Point two- Your going to trust possibly the most important thing ever, where we came from and will go, not to science and reason, but to faith?![/quote]
[quote]What did you use to determine that science and reason were the source of truth?

Please don't say science or reason, as that would be circular.[/quote]
Because all those things can be tested.

I have two brief comments to P-Dunn(this has gotten far too long for me to weigh in)

One, The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics says all energy goes to heat eventually. Just because we do not know a way of turning heat back into energy does not mean it's not possible. Perhaps the very high pressures present at the Big Bang(at the infinitith Big Bang, which is our current one) can convert it back. Regardless, until we see the evidence, we should not conclude.

Secondly, the definition of life... is iffy. There is no full comprehensive definition. In fact, for all we know, there is nothing that sets apart a rock from a person(in terms of life)

Noor,

[quote]God is ALL-knowing, not a " know everything except the future" god. You're placing limits on him.[/quote]
In the same way that I think asking God to create a rock so big he can't lift it is a self-contradictory request, I also believe that asking God to know the future of a logically free being is also self-contradictory.

There is plenty of Biblical support for open theism.

[quote]God can do anything, which means he can outdo himself also.[/quote]
Sorry, noor. Omnipotence does not cover logically impossible things. You're asking an already omnipotent being to do something that require him to have [i]more[/i] omnipotence than he already has, and that is 100% contradictory. It simply DOESN'T work that way.

[quote]The Big Bang was NOT an explosion out of nothing. It was an expansion of a singularity. How Life Came About[/quote]
So when atheist physicist Victor Stenger said that the universe, "exploded out of nothingness," he was mistaken? Does Dr. Stenger not understand the Big Bang?

How did the original singularity get there, noor? And, after that question is answered, how did it get all the energy to make such a massive expansion in such a short period of time?

If you're going to assert that the singularity occured due to preexisting materials, please explain how those got there as well. Ultimately, if you're going to assert that the universe has a beginning, there must be an explosion out of nothing for no reason if you are going to call yourself an atheist.

[quote]As for aliens, that idea came about because we have found traces of water (which could possibly mean life) on other planets, not because we can't explain how life started.[/quote]
So are you one of those people that really believes that aliens came by and deposited life on earth? Do you understand how this doesn't solve the problem, but multiplies it?

[quote]Because God is out of this world, supernatural, and so if he existed he could not mess around with this world. He does not exist in the natural world, and so he cannot create this world.[/quote]
Why? All you have for me is an assertion, an arbitrary quality for what is "supernatural" that you have no basis for.

You're also going against what you said at the beginning of the post. You're asserting that God can do anything, even do something logically contradictory. But God now can't do something: act inside the universe? Which is it, noor? Can God do everything, or are there things God can't do?

[quote]A perfect being must be completely satisfied and have everything. That's why god cannot have wants.[/quote]
I, of course, disagree with your characterization of perfection as "having all emotional possessions." You're once again going against your own definition of omnipotence by saying that God can't want.

[quote]We are not defining things as good or evil, we are going by the christian terms to label things. To show you that your premises contradict each other.[/quote]
Your thought process is strange, noor. Before we can discuss the "Problem of Evil," we must define what evil [i]is[/i], and how you got to that conclusion.

Personally, I believe that the sense of evil we have as humans directly proves God's existence, because it shows we have an objective morality.

[quote]I don't have to explain, god is all-powerful. He can do anything, including the impossible.[/quote]
But not act in the universe or want, right?

Make your decision.

[quote]Why should I care about what you think of these fallacies?[/quote]
Because you're in a debate with me. If all you're going to do is sit there and beg the question, then you're not worth debating with.

[quote]I haven't studied much about this, but I'll get back to you on it later.[/quote]
Don't bother. You merely accept that Hume's Dictum is self-defeating and move on. If it says that only physical things can be proven, but is itself not a physical thing, then the Dictum can't be proven at all, and merely defeats itself.

[quote]I'd like to know why god gave man the potential to sin? You don't need the presence of sin for freewill.[/quote]
Because there is no choice otherwise, and love without choice is not true love.

Sure, you don't need the presence of sin for free will, but you do need the potential for it.

[quote]God is all-good, not a "I'm-good-only-when-it-suits-the-situation" god.[/quote]
God is also not a, "I'm going to let humans commit the sin of laziness while I go and do everything for them," God either.

[quote]Do you?[/quote]
I don't know.

[quote]Wow, I'm not calling your rebuttals stupid. You need to read the verses in the bible where it preaches humbleness.[/quote]
Well, last time I checked, I was speaking to patches, not you. You only just got into this debate. And by the way, you need to read Jesus' scalding conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew 23.

[quote]I'm not too sure, but the bible doesn't seem to say anything about god creating life on other planets.[/quote]
Is there some reason why this should have been mentioned?

[quote]The point is that god created us for a (comparatively) short period of time, why?[/quote]
Why not?

[quote]Yes. He can do whatever he wants to solve the problems, yet he chooses this particular way.[/quote]
...Because that's the way that society was. We created crucifixion, which was viewed as THE most shameful death imaginable, and so God used it. It would provide an indisputable forgiveness of sins, as Christ would [i]become[/i] shame in our stead.

[quote]I don't think that's an argument for the non-existence of a god, but the point is that people keep cherry-picking out parts of the bible to adapt or preach at church.[/quote]
I don't deny this, but it didn't belong in this list of "fallacies," since you've even admitted that it's not an argument against God.

[quote]Back that up with a peer-reviewed article.[/quote]
I'm surprised you asked for this, since this is (or at least should be) common knowledge. I'll find you a peer-reviewed article, but for now, check [url=http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html]this[/url] out.

[quote]The more secular countries like Japan, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, etc. are amongst the top in standard of living, technology, while most of the poorer ones like most South American countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. have a majority of believers.[/quote]
So are you saying that the sucess of these countries is largely due to atheism? How much of an effect do you think religion plays in here? For example, do you deny that there are any other factors completely unrelated to religion coming into play here?

[quote]IQ and religion for one. I'm not saying that this is a proof against god, but it does show something.[/quote]
Well, I noticed that it says that America is an outlier, with a higher IQ rate for a religious person.

You're right, it's not proof against God. Therefore, it doesn't belong in a "fallacies of God" list, does it? It's merely a red herring.

[quote]Myths like when people thought lightning came from the gods. Benjamin Franklin later showed that lightning was a natural form of electricity.[/quote]
Okay. Now that we're on the same page...

Christianity's God is different from many of these myths in the way that it wasn't created merely to explain away naturalistic things. The ancient Hebrews didn't sit there and think, "Well, the sky is blue. So now we'll create a God that demands perfection from us, has 613 laws that we must follow, and uses harsh punishments for our wrongdoings."

Christiantiy is unique in the way that this God wants to have a relationship with all of us and has provided a way for salvation. He recognizes the depravity of our nature and has provided an easy way to help ourselves out of it.

[quote]What about you, have you dealt with every single philosophical argument against the existence of a god? Or what about the arguments for the existence of ghosts?[/quote]
Noor, I'm not denying that proof has been brought foreword. You are, if you're defending patches. Patches said that NO proof has been brought foreword, yet many, even in the scientific community, completely disagree.

Looks like I'm trying to deal with them now, aren't I? And it turns out that most of the arguments for atheism assign an arbitrary quality to God, claim it doesn't work based on practically no information, and then claim God doesn't exist. Arguments [i]for[/i] atheism are usually very weak, by definition...It's hard to prove a negative. Arguments against arguments [i]for[/i] the existence of God are usually stronger and more useful to atheists.

The existence of ghosts is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. Stop trying to dodge the issue.

[quote]I've already shown that open theism does not work, but even then, this proof does not have anything to do with freewill or the future.[/quote]
No, you asserted that you disagreed. You don't even believe in God anyway, so you're not in the best position to critique open theism.

I believe that there are things God logically cannot know, such as the free will of a human. I also believe this doesn't compromise omniscience, because omniscience is knowing all things [b]possible[/b] to know.

If God is "guessing" (and I use that word very carefully, since God if he existed would have access to ALL possible information and therefore would be much wiser than us) it would only be for matters in the future. In this case, he remains is "omnipotence" (in whatever ridiculous definition you're using) but also retains his omniscience, if in fact the future cannot be known.

[quote]Why not?[/quote]
Because there is no pain or anything in Heaven. We would be in God's presence, and so ultimately nothing else matters. We are not motivated by sex or money or anything else that cause us to sin in that way.

[quote]No, this proof assumes the christian theists are right, and then it shows how they are contradictory.[/quote]
Except patches didn't say [i]anything[/i] about Premise One, and I don't know a single theist who believes that God was created at some point.

If anyone is self-contradictory, it's patches. He asserts that the universe always existing is feasible, but God always existing is "unthinkable."

[quote]Prove to me that the supernatural does indeed exist. Or better yet, read about the James Randi challenge.[/quote]
That's for a seperate topic, isn't it?

[quote]The difference is that there is no blood flowing through the skin and bones, nor is there an active brain. A living human must start from the sperm and egg cells, which are already alive. (I'm not a biologist, so I might be getting this wrong though.)[/quote]
As far as I know, you're correct in your description of life. But why? Why can't we stick all the necessary parts together and form a living human?

Is it because there's more than just materials, or is it something else?

[quote]That the christian god wouldn't create these mechanical animals.[/quote]
I'll back this up by saying that I deny that we're mechanical as described. But what evidence do you have that a God wouldn't create these "mechanical evidence?" Do you have anything other than your personal opinion?

Further, what evidence do we have to support that all of our choices are branches of math? This proof seems to assume atheism is true, in the way that atheism entails that we're all controlled by our genes and chemical reactions, which means there is no free will in atheism.

[quote]Read the James Randi challenge. (No, that does not actually disprove the supernatural, but it does show something.)[/quote]
I'll admit that there is probably no way that I can prove to someone like James Randi that the soul exists. However, it does follow intuitively if God exists, then the soul exists as well.

[quote]That the idea of a soul doesn't work that well.[/quote]
Even if the soul is transparent, it doesn't logically follow that it would "float away" from the body. This is still treating the soul as a physical object, when it is [b]by definition[/b] an immaterial thing.

[quote]True. But (assuming it exists) the soul is not like a law of math or logic.[/quote]
Assuming it exists, it is immaterial. So are they. It would affect our physical bodies in the way that it keeps us alive. So do the laws of math or logic; if they did not exist, it is doubtful the universe would either.

The soul is more like those than you think.

[quote]How do you explain NDEs then? (again, assuming they are real and not hallucinations) People almost die and have images of heaven in those.[/quote]
Noor, you've completely switched it around. We're talking about people in heaven not knowing their life on earth, rather than people on earth knowing life in heaven.

I think that some NDEs are real, but they're not the greatest evidence for God. Hallucinations or true visions, they are simply fascinating, and I'm sure you'll agree.

[quote]You're the one with the double standard. You are willing to go ahead and jump to the idea that your uncreated god created the world, but you cannot imagine that maybe the universe did not need a creator? I eliminate the god out of the equation because of Occam's Razor. It's simpler to say matter is eternal instead of making it much more complicated by adding in a creator.[/quote]
Notice the subtle switch in terms. We went from talking about the universe never having a beginning to the universe not needing a creator. Please stay on topic.

I don't believe the universe didn't have a beginning because there are reams of evidence against that. For one, the universe would have run out of energy by now, according to the 2nd Law. For two, an infinite number of days before today would imply that today would have never arrived, because after each day that past, there would always be an infinite number of days after it. Also, today would be the end of an actually infinite set, and that's impossible, since an actually infinite set has no end. There [b]can't[/b] be an eternal universe for these reasons.

Why doesn't God apply to any of these? Because he is timeless, unable to be measured by time, as he created it. That logically follows. The internal inconsistencies of an infinite amount of time don't apply to God, because he can't be measured by it. He also wouldn't run out of energy, as he is God and created energy as well...He is both outside of time and energy.

Why is it so hard for an uncreated being to create the universe, but it's "simpler" for the universe as a whole to be uncreated? Do you have a problem with God being uncreated, but not the universe? There is no double standard for me, because I go towards the evidence, and [b]there is no evidence[/b] for a cycling universe. You have a double standard because you are postulating that one thing can be infinite, but not another thing.

[quote]Funny that you use the laws of thermodynamics, because the first law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This is my point exactly. As for the infinite number of days, I cannot know that for sure, but I would rather let it stay a mystery until there is an answer with scientific evidence.[/quote]
The first law only applies to natural circumstances rather than supernatural circumstances. Of course, I don't believe that God created it from nothing. There was undoubtedly something: God himself. You, on the other hand, disagree. So why is there something rather than nothing, then? Given the internal inconsistencies with an actually infinite number of days, the universe must have had a beginning.

You're also using a "Atheism of the Gaps." We don't know for sure how an infinite number of days could have occured, but I'll believe it, because certainly God didn't do it. You undoubtedly criticize Christians for using similar reasoning, which is why I find your argument unacceptable.

[quote]Actually a lot of theists use the argument that the bible is proof of god, which is circular. But just where is that evidence for your god?[/quote]
Fortunately for you, I am not one of those theists. I do recognize that many theists use this, and I've had it used on me, in fact, when I question their methods. I always criticize them when they do.

There is plenty of evidence for my God, as laid out by the beginning of the universe, the extreme fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values, and all the evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And personally as a musician, I think the objective beauty in music is proof of God's existence, but I'm most likely in the minority.

[quote]Your bible is two thousand years old, time to get a new source. And besides, what prior performance?[/quote]
Age, in this particular case, is irrelevant.

The prior performance that the disciples were talking about was their experience of Jesus' miracles and the appearances of Jesus alive to them. This "prior performance" was enough for them to dedicate the rest of their lives, up until their brutal deaths, to spread this story as far as they could.

Other than that, the experience of many believers could be used here.

[quote]What about the thousands of other religions that also claim to give purpose to our lives??[/quote]
I don't deny this. If God exists, there is a purpose to our lives, unless you believe in a mindless deistic God who doesn't care. I believe this view is unrealistic. If a religion is true, then there is therefore purpose.

Atheism, on the other hand, allows no purpose in anyone's life, if you're going to be honest with your own worldview. It's simply unlivable to be a true, practicing atheist.

[quote]I live my life for my goals and purposes. I do my schoolwork because I want to do well on the tests, so that I can get good grades, which means a good college and future. I don't need a greater purpose to clutch on to.[/quote]
See? You want to believe there is purpose to your life, even if it's not significant, despite the fact that you believe we're cosmic accidents in a harsh universe that will ultimately be destined to die individually, as well as a species, in a relatively short time. Why should you care about tests or grades when your life, and how you will influence people, ultimately doesn't matter at all?

[quote]I use my common sense to say that science is based on observed facts and analyzing things and that reason works better than faith.[/quote]
For one, how do you "analyze things" without using reason itself to define what is better?

"Common sense..." It's interesting that you call it "common" when atheists make up less than 10% of the world's population. That's certainly common, isn't it?

You also have faith yourself. You believe in a cyclic universe, something we have absolutely no evidence for, and in fact, plenty of evidence against it. You also will continue to believe that, because eventually science will come up with an explanation. My belief in a Creator God is fully in line with the evidence for the beginning of the universe, creation [i]ex nihilo[/i], unlike your metaphysical hypothesis that someone invented out of thin air. Atheism takes much more faith than theism.

[quote]I've rebutted your responses to the fallacies.[/quote]
Well, thank you for taking the time, I suppose.

[quote]P-Dunn, you're gonna have to try a LOT harder next time.[/quote]
Of course, I could continue that by changing P-Dunn to noor, but that would be pointless.

[quote]All thinking men are atheists. - Ernest Hemingway

If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them. - Baron d'Holbach[/quote]
Since you're playing the quote game...

"A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the . . . universe came from nothing and by nothing." - Anthony Kenny, Oxford University

"To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." - Joseph Addison

"They are all ill discoverers that think that there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea." - Francis Bacon

Hmm...Really? There's no thick, gray, dividing line in that post, at least on my screen.

[quote]I have two brief comments to P-Dunn(this has gotten far too long for me to weigh in)[/quote]
Brief comments are fine with me. At least it doesn't take 30 minutes to reply to.

[quote]One, The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics says all energy goes to heat eventually. Just because we do not know a way of turning heat back into energy does not mean it's not possible. Perhaps the very high pressures present at the Big Bang(at the infinitith Big Bang, which is our current one) can convert it back. Regardless, until we see the evidence, we should not conclude.[/quote]
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

For me to believe that hypothesis that you seem to have invented out of thin air, you're going to have to not only provide me with evidence for your statement that this is indeed the "infinitith" Big Bang, but for pressure converting heat to energy. As of now, I [b]know[/b] that there is absolutely no evidence for your first claim, but contradicting evidence. Not sure about the second.

[quote]Secondly, the definition of life... is iffy. There is no full comprehensive definition. In fact, for all we know, there is nothing that sets apart a rock from a person(in terms of life)[/quote]
So you're telling me you would feel equally about these two actions:

1) Throwing a rock off of a cliff.
2) Throwing a person off of a cliff.

If, as far as we know, there's nothing different (life-wise) between a rock and a human, there shouldn't be any difference in your feelings.

Sir, that is quite simply an unlivable idea.

[quote=P-Dunn]
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

For me to believe that hypothesis that you seem to have invented out of thin air, you're going to have to not only provide me with evidence for your statement that this is indeed the "infinitith" Big Bang, but for pressure converting heat to energy. As of now, I [b]know[/b] that there is absolutely no evidence for your first claim, but contradicting evidence. Not sure about the second.[/quote]

Exactly, since there is no evidence, neither specifically for my hypothesis of the God hypothesis, we should accept neither as being true until we receive further evidence of either.

[quote]Secondly, the definition of life... is iffy. There is no full comprehensive definition. In fact, for all we know, there is nothing that sets apart a rock from a person(in terms of life)[/quote]
So you're telling me you would feel equally about these two actions:

1) Throwing a rock off of a cliff.
2) Throwing a person off of a cliff.

If, as far as we know, there's nothing different (life-wise) between a rock and a human, there shouldn't be any difference in your feelings.

Sir, that is quite simply an unlivable idea.[/quote]

I never said there's nothing DIFFERENT between life and non-life, I simply said that the defintion(meaning the strict border of life or not) is iffy, meaning that there's no specific line. The main example would be prokaryotic cells or nuclei.

[quote=P-Dunn]Noor,

[quote]God is ALL-knowing, not a " know everything except the future" god. You're placing limits on him.[/quote]
In the same way that I think asking God to create a rock so big he can't lift it is a self-contradictory request, I also believe that asking God to know the future of a logically free being is also self-contradictory.

There is plenty of Biblical support for open theism.[/quote]

By saying that he can't do the impossible, you're attempting to gain control of defining him. Other theists will disagree with your definition of a god, which one is right?

[quote][quote]God can do anything, which means he can outdo himself also.[/quote]
Sorry, noor. Omnipotence does not cover logically impossible things. You're asking an already omnipotent being to do something that require him to have [i]more[/i] omnipotence than he already has, and that is 100% contradictory. It simply DOESN'T work that way.[/quote]

Yes, it is logically contradictory and if god is omnipotent he [i]can[/i] also contradict himself. Do you understand what infinite power means? If god cannot do [i]everything[/i] he is limited in his power. Which leads to a paradox.

[quote][quote]The Big Bang was NOT an explosion out of nothing. It was an expansion of a singularity. How Life Came About[/quote]
So when atheist physicist Victor Stenger said that the universe, "exploded out of nothingness," he was mistaken? Does Dr. Stenger not understand the Big Bang?

How did the original singularity get there, noor? And, after that question is answered, how did it get all the energy to make such a massive expansion in such a short period of time?

If you're going to assert that the singularity occured due to preexisting materials, please explain how those got there as well. Ultimately, if you're going to assert that the universe has a beginning, there must be an explosion out of nothing for no reason if you are going to call yourself an atheist.[/quote]

I believe Stenger was referring to how the singularity got there. As for the original singularity, I don't know, but I refuse to jump to the idea that a god created it until there is proof.

Did you bother to read the link as to how life came about?

[quote][quote]As for aliens, that idea came about because we have found traces of water (which could possibly mean life) on other planets, not because we can't explain how life started.[/quote]
So are you one of those people that really believes that aliens came by and deposited life on earth? Do you understand how this doesn't solve the problem, but multiplies it?[/quote]

No, I was not saying that I believe it. I was pointing out that scientists only said aliens might have been the cause because of traces of water on other planets, NOT because there is no current explanation. You're dodging the point and changing the subject to what I personally believe, and then try to make it sound ridiculous.

[quote][quote]Because God is out of this world, supernatural, and so if he existed he could not mess around with this world. He does not exist in the natural world, and so he cannot create this world.[/quote]
Why? All you have for me is an assertion, an arbitrary quality for what is "supernatural" that you have no basis for.

You're also going against what you said at the beginning of the post. You're asserting that God can do anything, even do something logically contradictory. But God now can't do something: act inside the universe? Which is it, noor? Can God do everything, or are there things God can't do?[/quote]

I'm trying to show you that your god is an impossibility by assuming that god is all-powerful and then showing you that it doesn't work. If your god is supernatural, he is not natural. If he is not natural, then he is beyond this world, and in a totally different realm.

An omnipotent god is an impossibility in the first place - I believe I've shown you this in II. And if god is not omnipotent, then there are things he can't do.

[quote][quote]A perfect being must be completely satisfied and have everything. That's why god cannot have wants.[/quote]
I, of course, disagree with your characterization of perfection as "having all emotional possessions." You're once again going against your own definition of omnipotence by saying that God can't want.[/quote]

When did I say "emotional possessions"? You're again attempting to define him [i]your[/i] particular way.

[quote][quote]We are not defining things as good or evil, we are going by the christian terms to label things. To show you that your premises contradict each other.[/quote]
Your thought process is strange, noor. Before we can discuss the "Problem of Evil," we must define what evil [i]is[/i], and how you got to that conclusion.

Personally, I believe that the sense of evil we have as humans directly proves God's existence, because it shows we have an objective morality.[/quote]

I am not defining things as "evil" - you are. You (or at least, a lot of xians) define things such as bad happenings as the deed of the devil, when god could put a stop to it all.

[quote][quote]I don't have to explain, god is all-powerful. He can do anything, including the impossible.[/quote]
But not act in the universe or want, right?

Make your decision.[/quote]

Again, I'm assuming that you're right and that god is indeed all-powerful, and then I'm showing you that doesn't work.

[quote][quote]Why should I care about what you think of these fallacies?[/quote]
Because you're in a debate with me. If all you're going to do is sit there and beg the question, then you're not worth debating with.[/quote]

I'm not begging the question, I'm showing you that your attempt to gain control of defining god doesn't work that well.

[quote][quote]I haven't studied much about this, but I'll get back to you on it later.[/quote]
Don't bother. You merely accept that Hume's Dictum is self-defeating and move on. If it says that only physical things can be proven, but is itself not a physical thing, then the Dictum can't be proven at all, and merely defeats itself.[/quote]

Oh, so you just jump to conclusions again.

[quote]I'd like to know why god gave man the potential to sin? You don't need the presence of sin for freewill.[/quote]
Because there is no choice otherwise, and love without choice is not true love.

Sure, you don't need the presence of sin for free will, but you do need the potential for it.[/quote]

How is love without choice true love? God could have just created the world and given man no potential to sin, and still have loved man.

[quote][quote]God is all-good, not a "I'm-good-only-when-it-suits-the-situation" god.[/quote]
God is also not a, "I'm going to let humans commit the sin of laziness while I go and do everything for them," God either.[/quote]

Do you even understand what omnibenevolence is? It means that god is [i]all[/i]-good, and god would not let anything "bad" happen no matter how evil man was. Unless man is infinitely sinful.

[quote][quote]Do you?[/quote]
I don't know.[/quote]

Then get some solid premises for your beliefs first.

[quote][quote]Wow, I'm not calling your rebuttals stupid. You need to read the verses in the bible where it preaches humbleness.[/quote]
Well, last time I checked, I was speaking to patches, not you. You only just got into this debate. And by the way, you need to read Jesus' scalding conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew 23.[/quote]

Oh, the part where Jesus calls the Pharisees 'fools, hypocrites, blind guides, serpents, and vipers?'

As you can see, Jesus called them fools.

According to the Bible, in Matthew 5:22, Jesus also said, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

I'm not trying to say that Jesus is in danger of hell fire, since he made the rule, he doesn't have to follow it. But then, what does his scalding conversation of the
Pharisees have to do with this?

If Jesus doesn't have to follow his teachings and suffer the consequences, like the one in Matthew 5:22, then that means that someone else, like Paul, is in danger of hell fire. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:36, Paul says, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die"

Paul does it again in Galatians 3:1, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"

Can you give me a better reason to look at the scalding of the Pharisees?

[quote][quote]I'm not too sure, but the bible doesn't seem to say anything about god creating life on other planets.[/quote]
Is there some reason why this should have been mentioned?[/quote]

Because you claimed that god might have created life on other planets and shown himself to them, yet god's word doesn't say anything about that. Funny.

[quote][quote]The point is that god created us for a (comparatively) short period of time, why?[/quote]
Why not?[/quote]

Wouldn't god's perfect word have the answer to my question?

[quote][quote]Yes. He can do whatever he wants to solve the problems, yet he chooses this particular way.[/quote]
...Because that's the way that society was. We created crucifixion, which was viewed as THE most shameful death imaginable, and so God used it. It would provide an indisputable forgiveness of sins, as Christ would [i]become[/i] shame in our stead.[/quote]

Jesus died to save us from hell. God created hell, and Jesus is god. So god came to earth as Jesus to save us from a hell that he himself created?

[quote][quote]I don't think that's an argument for the non-existence of a god, but the point is that people keep cherry-picking out parts of the bible to adapt or preach at church.[/quote]
I don't deny this, but it didn't belong in this list of "fallacies," since you've even admitted that it's not an argument against God.[/quote]

Let's leave this part out then.

[quote][quote]Back that up with a peer-reviewed article.[/quote]
I'm surprised you asked for this, since this is (or at least should be) common knowledge. I'll find you a peer-reviewed article, but for now, check [url=http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html]this[/url] out.[/quote]

[quote][quote]The more secular countries like Japan, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, etc. are amongst the top in standard of living, technology, while most of the poorer ones like most South American countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. have a majority of believers.[/quote]
So are you saying that the sucess of these countries is largely due to atheism? How much of an effect do you think religion plays in here? For example, do you deny that there are any other factors completely unrelated to religion coming into play here?[/quote]

No, I don't deny that. There might be a few, but I find it funny that a god would actually allow people who don't believe in him to be more sucessful than the ones who do believe, no? (I'm not saying that ALL atheists are sucessful or that all theists aren't though.)

[quote][quote]IQ and religion for one. I'm not saying that this is a proof against god, but it does show something.[/quote]
Well, I noticed that it says that America is an outlier, with a higher IQ rate for a religious person.[/quote]

Only one country versus the rest of the world?

[quote]You're right, it's not proof against God. Therefore, it doesn't belong in a "fallacies of God" list, does it? It's merely a red herring.[/quote]

It may not be a fallacy against god, but it's interesting that a god would allow less religious people to be more intelligent.

[quote][quote]Myths like when people thought lightning came from the gods. Benjamin Franklin later showed that lightning was a natural form of electricity.[/quote]
Okay. Now that we're on the same page...

Christianity's God is different from many of these myths in the way that it wasn't created merely to explain away naturalistic things. The ancient Hebrews didn't sit there and think, "Well, the sky is blue. So now we'll create a God that demands perfection from us, has 613 laws that we must follow, and uses harsh punishments for our wrongdoings."

Christiantiy is unique in the way that this God wants to have a relationship with all of us and has provided a way for salvation. He recognizes the depravity of our nature and has provided an easy way to help ourselves out of it.[/quote]

And just what makes you think that the xian god was not inspired by the gods from other religions??

[quote][quote]What about you, have you dealt with every single philosophical argument against the existence of a god? Or what about the arguments for the existence of ghosts?[/quote]
Noor, I'm not denying that proof has been brought foreword. You are, if you're defending patches. Patches said that NO proof has been brought foreword, yet many, even in the scientific community, completely disagree.

Looks like I'm trying to deal with them now, aren't I? And it turns out that most of the arguments for atheism assign an arbitrary quality to God, claim it doesn't work based on practically no information, and then claim God doesn't exist. Arguments [i]for[/i] atheism are usually very weak, by definition...It's hard to prove a negative. Arguments against arguments [i]for[/i] the existence of God are usually stronger and more useful to atheists.[/quote]

It is hard to prove a negative, that is true. But if we have a clear definition of the object, then sometimes we can show that the attributes contradict. Like disproving a round circle is possible because the characteristics contradict by definition.

[quote]The existence of ghosts is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. Stop trying to dodge the issue.[/quote]

I'm not trying to get you into an offtopic debate over the existence of ghosts. My point is that you don't believe in ghosts despite the evidence that has been brought forward.

[quote][quote]I've already shown that open theism does not work, but even then, this proof does not have anything to do with freewill or the future.[/quote]
No, you asserted that you disagreed. You don't even believe in God anyway, so you're not in the best position to critique open theism.[/quote]

You're not in the best position to criticize any form of atheism either, then.

[quote]I believe that there are things God logically cannot know, such as the free will of a human. I also believe this doesn't compromise omniscience, because omniscience is knowing all things [b]possible[/b] to know.

If God is "guessing" (and I use that word very carefully, since God if he existed would have access to ALL possible information and therefore would be much wiser than us) it would only be for matters in the future. In this case, he remains is "omnipotence" (in whatever ridiculous definition you're using) but also retains his omniscience, if in fact the future cannot be known.[/quote]

Again, omnipotence means all-powerful. Infinitely powerful. Omniscience means infinitely knowledgeable. [i]Infinite[/i] knowledge means that God would have to know everything, not "everything except the future" in which case his knowledge would be [i]finite[/i].

[quote][quote]Why not?[/quote]
Because there is no pain or anything in Heaven. We would be in God's presence, and so ultimately nothing else matters. We are not motivated by sex or money or anything else that cause us to sin in that way.[/quote]

Adam and Eve were tempted by the devil. What makes you think the devil (who fell in heaven also - I think) won't tempt someone in heaven to do harm to each other?

[quote][quote]No, this proof assumes the christian theists are right, and then it shows how they are contradictory.[/quote]
Except patches didn't say [i]anything[/i] about Premise One, and I don't know a single theist who believes that God was created at some point.

If anyone is self-contradictory, it's patches. He asserts that the universe always existing is feasible, but God always existing is "unthinkable."[/quote]

Have you read about Occam' Razor?

God did not need a creator. God created the universe.

When you apply Occam's Razor, you get:

The universe did not need a creator.

You eliminate a far more complex factor and simple explanations are usually (not always though) correct.

[quote][quote]Prove to me that the supernatural does indeed exist. Or better yet, read about the James Randi challenge.[/quote]
That's for a seperate topic, isn't it?[/quote]

Yes, but you admit (later down) that you can't prove the supernatural. So why do you believe in it without direct evidence for it? Don't say that the soul must exist if god exists, as that is pretty much a baseless assertion.

[quote][quote]The difference is that there is no blood flowing through the skin and bones, nor is there an active brain. A living human must start from the sperm and egg cells, which are already alive. (I'm not a biologist, so I might be getting this wrong though.)[/quote]
As far as I know, you're correct in your description of life. But why? Why can't we stick all the necessary parts together and form a living human?

Is it because there's more than just materials, or is it something else?[/quote]

We can't stick the parts together and form a living human because life starts with the already-alive egg and sperm.

And if you're going to bring up "How did life first appear on the planet?" I already gave you a link to a page that explains how life started.

[quote][quote]That the christian god wouldn't create these mechanical animals.[/quote]
I'll back this up by saying that I deny that we're mechanical as described. But what evidence do you have that a God wouldn't create these "mechanical evidence?" Do you have anything other than your personal opinion?

Further, what evidence do we have to support that all of our choices are branches of math? This proof seems to assume atheism is true, in the way that atheism entails that we're all controlled by our genes and chemical reactions, which means there is no free will in atheism.[/quote]

Do you understand what free will is? Free will is when people are able to do anything without an external agency interfering in. How can there be no free will in atheism?

Atheism does not assume anything, it is simply the lack of belief. (There may be atheists who don't believe in evolution, for example.)

[quote][quote]Read the James Randi challenge. (No, that does not actually disprove the supernatural, but it does show something.)[/quote]
I'll admit that there is probably no way that I can prove to someone like James Randi that the soul exists. However, it does follow intuitively if God exists, then the soul exists as well.[/quote]

Where do you get that idea from? Don't quote the bible here. There are plenty of theists who do not believe a soul exists. And if you can't prove it, then why believe it?

[quote][quote]That the idea of a soul doesn't work that well.[/quote]
Even if the soul is transparent, it doesn't logically follow that it would "float away" from the body. This is still treating the soul as a physical object, when it is [b]by definition[/b] an immaterial thing.[/quote]

[quote][quote]True. But (assuming it exists) the soul is not like a law of math or logic.[/quote]
Assuming it exists, it is immaterial. So are they. It would affect our physical bodies in the way that it keeps us alive. So do the laws of math or logic; if they did not exist, it is doubtful the universe would either.

The soul is more like those than you think.[/quote]

You want to say there's something as the supernatural or immaterial? I say you're "paracorrect" in doing so.

[quote][quote]How do you explain NDEs then? (again, assuming they are real and not hallucinations) People almost die and have images of heaven in those.[/quote]
Noor, you've completely switched it around. We're talking about people in heaven not knowing their life on earth, rather than people on earth knowing life in heaven.[/quote]

Actually I think my sentence was a little unclear. Assuming NDEs are real, people visit heaven in those which would mean that they have forgotten their previous lives on earth. But when they come back to earth, they still remember their past on earth. If people are really visiting heaven, wouldn't they forget their past on earth and not remember anything when they "return" back to earth?

[quote]I think that some NDEs are real, but they're not the greatest evidence for God. Hallucinations or true visions, they are simply fascinating, and I'm sure you'll agree.[/quote]

True, I just don't believe they are real visits to heaven, obviously.

[quote][quote]You're the one with the double standard. You are willing to go ahead and jump to the idea that your uncreated god created the world, but you cannot imagine that maybe the universe did not need a creator? I eliminate the god out of the equation because of Occam's Razor. It's simpler to say matter is eternal instead of making it much more complicated by adding in a creator.[/quote]
Notice the subtle switch in terms. We went from talking about the universe never having a beginning to the universe not needing a creator. Please stay on topic.[/quote]

When I say "universe" I am referring to the universe as we know it. The big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. The matter/energy that makes up the universe is probably eternal.

[quote]I don't believe the universe didn't have a beginning because there are reams of evidence against that. For one, the universe would have run out of energy by now, according to the 2nd Law. For two, an infinite number of days before today would imply that today would have never arrived, because after each day that past, there would always be an infinite number of days after it. Also, today would be the end of an actually infinite set, and that's impossible, since an actually infinite set has no end. There [b]can't[/b] be an eternal universe for these reasons.[/quote]

You're not getting it. The universe is not eternal, you're getting the terms universe and matter mixed up.

[quote]Why doesn't God apply to any of these? Because he is timeless, unable to be measured by time, as he created it. That logically follows. The internal inconsistencies of an infinite amount of time don't apply to God, because he can't be measured by it. He also wouldn't run out of energy, as he is God and created energy as well...He is both outside of time and energy.[/quote]

When you claim that god is timeless, you are essentially stating that god does not exist in the time continuum.

[quote]Why is it so hard for an uncreated being to create the universe, but it's "simpler" for the universe as a whole to be uncreated? Do you have a problem with God being uncreated, but not the universe? There is no double standard for me, because I go towards the evidence, and [b]there is no evidence[/b] for a cycling universe. You have a double standard because you are postulating that one thing can be infinite, but not another thing.[/quote]

See my explanation of Occam's Razor above. And where is your direct evidence that some sort of creator was needed to create everything?

[quote][quote]Funny that you use the laws of thermodynamics, because the first law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This is my point exactly. As for the infinite number of days, I cannot know that for sure, but I would rather let it stay a mystery until there is an answer with scientific evidence.[/quote]
The first law only applies to natural circumstances rather than supernatural circumstances. Of course, I don't believe that God created it from nothing. There was undoubtedly something: God himself. You, on the other hand, disagree. So why is there something rather than nothing, then? Given the internal inconsistencies with an actually infinite number of days, the universe must have had a beginning.

You're also using a "Atheism of the Gaps." We don't know for sure how an infinite number of days could have occured, but I'll believe it, because certainly God didn't do it. You undoubtedly criticize Christians for using similar reasoning, which is why I find your argument unacceptable.[/quote]

Atheism is the negative position, so there is no "atheism of the gaps". Saying that god did it is a positive position that asserts something. I never said that because there is no answer (as of now), "certainly god didn't do it."

[quote][quote]Actually a lot of theists use the argument that the bible is proof of god, which is circular. But just where is that evidence for your god?[/quote]
Fortunately for you, I am not one of those theists. I do recognize that many theists use this, and I've had it used on me, in fact, when I question their methods. I always criticize them when they do.

There is plenty of evidence for my God, as laid out by the beginning of the universe, the extreme fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values, and all the evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And personally as a musician, I think the objective beauty in music is proof of God's existence, but I'm most likely in the minority.[/quote]

Beginning of the universe: Just because there is no answer does not mean that you can say "god did it".

Extreme finetuning of the universe: Then how do you explain your far more complicated god who is probably more complex than the universe?

Objective moral values: I can give you an article

[i]From New York Times
An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

Who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin.

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.

Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, “Moral Minds” (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.
. . . .
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior. Readmore[/i]

Resurrection of Christ: Why don't you post your evidence on the [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign]Jesus Mythicist forum[/url] at the RRS, if you are so sure it's real? [b]They are offering $666 if you succeed in doing so.[/b]

[quote][quote]Your bible is two thousand years old, time to get a new source. And besides, what prior performance?[/quote]
Age, in this particular case, is irrelevant.

The prior performance that the disciples were talking about was their experience of Jesus' miracles and the appearances of Jesus alive to them. This "prior performance" was enough for them to dedicate the rest of their lives, up until their brutal deaths, to spread this story as far as they could.

Other than that, the experience of many believers could be used here.[/quote]

What about all sorts of mass delusions throughout history? The Puritan Salem witch trials? Those people really believed witches were haunting them and thought they had evidence of witchcraft. Or the time when people have supposedly seen aliens? Or ghosts? It's funny that people who actually believe in this stuff claim to have seen it. For one, I used to believe ghosts were real and I thought I'd seen one a few times. Now that I don't believe in them anymore, I haven't "seen" one in a long time.

I'm just trying to point out that experiences do not count as evidence. No professional or scholar would see them as proof.

[quote][quote]What about the thousands of other religions that also claim to give purpose to our lives??[/quote]
I don't deny this. If God exists, there is a purpose to our lives, unless you believe in a mindless deistic God who doesn't care. I believe this view is unrealistic. If a religion is true, then there is therefore purpose.

Atheism, on the other hand, allows no purpose in anyone's life, if you're going to be honest with your own worldview. It's simply unlivable to be a true, practicing atheist.[/quote]

So are you telling me that about one billion nonbelievers in the world are not living lives fully? (This isn't argumentum ad populum, I'm only showing you that atheism doesn't make life completely bleak.) I know plenty of people who don't care about religion and still live good and meaningful lives, just without a giant purpose.

[quote][quote]I live my life for my goals and purposes. I do my schoolwork because I want to do well on the tests, so that I can get good grades, which means a good college and future. I don't need a greater purpose to clutch on to.[/quote]
See? You want to believe there is purpose to your life, even if it's not significant, despite the fact that you believe we're cosmic accidents in a harsh universe that will ultimately be destined to die individually, as well as a species, in a relatively short time. Why should you care about tests or grades when your life, and how you will influence people, ultimately doesn't matter at all?[/quote]

As to the first part, yes, I accept that the universe doesn't care about me. I don't need to feel all high-and-important, at the top of a world where a skydaddy cares about me. My life does matter to my family and my friends, though, and my future does matter to me, because I will be living it.

You don't understand the difference between living for a great big purpose and living for the goals you make for yourself everyday.

[quote][quote]I use my common sense to say that science is based on observed facts and analyzing things and that reason works better than faith.[/quote]
For one, how do you "analyze things" without using reason itself to define what is better?[/quote]

Reason is something instilled in all of us and it relies on evidence. Funny that even you yourself try and use reason to ask your question.

[quote]"Common sense..." It's interesting that you call it "common" when atheists make up less than 10% of the world's population. That's certainly common, isn't it?[/quote]

Please. Look up the meaning of common sense before you actually start making assumptions about it.

[quote]You also have faith yourself. You believe in a cyclic universe, something we have absolutely no evidence for, and in fact, plenty of evidence against it. You also will continue to believe that, because eventually science will come up with an explanation. My belief in a Creator God is fully in line with the evidence for the beginning of the universe, creation [i]ex nihilo[/i], unlike your metaphysical hypothesis that someone invented out of thin air. Atheism takes much more faith than theism.[/quote]

Faith is a belief without proof. Go ahead, show me how atheism assumes anything. It does not, it is the lack of belief.

Wtf do you mean that there is absolutely no evidence for a cyclic universe? Do you actually consider yourself to be smarter than virtually every astrophysicist that ever lived?

[quote][quote]I've rebutted your responses to the fallacies.[/quote]
Well, thank you for taking the time, I suppose.[/quote]

Thank you also.

[quote][quote]P-Dunn, you're gonna have to try a LOT harder next time.[/quote]
Of course, I could continue that by changing P-Dunn to noor, but that would be pointless.[/quote]

I suppose so.

[quote=Guruite][quote]It is hard to prove a negative, that is true. But if we have a clear definition of the object, then sometimes we can show that the attributes contradict. Like disproving a round circle is possible because the characteristics contradict by definition.[/quote]

A round circle? I dont follow.... (but it is late... )[/quote]

My apologies, I meant a round square.

[quote][quote]
Again, omnipotence means all-powerful. Infinitely powerful. Omniscience means infinitely knowledgeable. Infinite knowledge means that God would have to know everything, not "everything except the future" in which case his knowledge would be finite.[/quote]

Haha! Omnipotence now (I just made this definition) means infinitly powerful in things he can do... like an asymptote... god cannot do some things but he can get so infinitely close TO doing them that we just put one up on the board as a win![/quote]

My point is that P-Dunn keeps attempting to define god his particular way.

[quote][quote]Where do you get that idea from? Don't quote the bible here. There are plenty of theists who do not believe a soul exists. And if you can't prove it, then why believe it?[/quote]

Weird, I have never heard of one... I would assume that believing in god automatically makes you believe in an afterlife of sorts[/quote]

I think most deists don't believe in a soul, for example.

[quote][quote]Atheism does not assume anything, it is simply the lack of belief. (There may be atheists who don't believe in evolution, for example.)[/quote]

I guess it is possible... but then how did we get here? I mean are there any alternitive theories that do not invoke the supernatural (I guess you could be atheist but still believe in leprechaunism...)[/quote]

You could remain an agnostic over the beginnings.

[quote][quote]
Actually I think my sentence was a little unclear. Assuming NDEs are real, people visit heaven in those which would mean that they have forgotten their previous lives on earth. But when they come back to earth, they still remember their past on earth. If people are really visiting heaven, wouldn't they forget their past on earth and not remember anything when they "return" back to earth?[/quote]

This is a weak point, i mean as long as were are assuming that they do go to heaven (which theists dont have to believe) we could say that god wanted them to tell us to have faith... or that the angels diddnt have time to place mental blocks before they dropped back down...[/quote]

I know, but I thought it was interesting.

[quote][quote]Wtf do you mean that there is absolutely no evidence for a cyclic universe? Do you actually consider yourself to be smarter than virtually every astrophysicist that ever lived?[/quote]

I think I wikied the end of the universe (this is not a great source... so dont get all mad at me for using it... i am not saying this for sure) but it seemed to think that all matter would condense into blackholes, which would them slowely evaporate due to hawking radation... which would cause the eventual loss of all matter to energy in a complete state of entropy... or something like that[/quote]

I got confused over the whole cyclic universe thing, sorry. I do not exactly believe it, but if there is proof then I will.

[quote=Guruite][quote]My point is that P-Dunn keeps attempting to define god his particular way.[/quote]

Since the christian notion of god is semi solid, he can define his own god. I was just making a joke about omnipotence[/quote]

Ok. There are other theists who would disagree with his definition.

[quote][quote]I think most deists don't believe in a soul, for example.[/quote]
I just assumed that they did.... I mean I sure would if i believed in a God (why would he/she/it/them have created us if only to see us fizzle out of existence?)[/quote]

Yeah, that's why I don't believe in a deist god either. I don't think the founding fathers believed in a soul, and they were deists. Not all deists reject a soul though.

[quote][quote]You could remain an agnostic over the beginnings.[/quote]

Yeah, but no one refrains from believing in some theory or other. I mean... if you do not know and you do not accept any other theories then you take your guess at it. As far as I know, there are only 2 positions on how we got here (or that could even really be possible) - evolution and some form of design[/quote]

What if the person just doesn't care at all about how we got here?

[quote][quote]
I know, but I thought it was interesting.[/quote]

My seminary teacher (btw, I only took one year and I was still a theist... ) had this whole lesson about all of these people who came out of these near death experiances and how their vision of the afterlife was so close to the mormon church's... [/quote]

Interesting, it is true that people who believe in ghosts will claim to have evidence of them.

[quote][quote]I got confused over the whole cyclic universe thing, sorry. I do not exactly believe it, but if there is proof then I will.[/quote]

Well, wiki says that the universe is not cyclic, it is going to "end" (it won't really ever end as far as time is concerned... just keep on going) by turning all matter into energy which is in photons... I personally think it sounds depressing... but I wont be alive so it dosent really matter[/quote]

A cyclic universe means that the currently expanding universe will eventually contract and then expand again and contract, over and over in a cycle.

As far as we know, there are two possible fates of the universe: either [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/23/MN241327.DTL0]a Big Crunch in which all matter will eventually collapse together[/url], or [url=http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/AAS_winter-sn/pr.html]a forever expanding universe.[/url]