Yeah, I think the gray signature line didn't show up earlier because my post was way too long. :)

[quote]Yet what difference does it make? Why can't supernatural beings act within the natural realm? Do you have any reason what I should believe this outside of your own personal opinion?

An interesting question here that sort of pertains. If you pick up a box, is it a violation of the laws of gravity?

If God picks up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? If so, why?[/quote]

You must realize that because we have no scientific evidence of ANY supernatural beings. As such, we can say that they can negate the consequences of their own actions, manupulate our cultural history and everything else... or they could do absolutely nothing and be slaughtered by the billions by a single amoeba... supernatural is a meaningless statement because it could mean anything that is not testible - like god, leprechauns, or brilliant, genious, yet oddly immature atoms.

[quote]Do you have any reason what I should believe this outside of your own personal opinion?[/quote]

Umm, personal opinion is more tangible than the supernatural... at least you can test it and see the brain waves and such...

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

But it sure does logically follow. Since materials have not existed for all eternity, then the cause must be self-existent, timeless, non spatial, and immaterial. It must be incredibly powerful in order to create the universe out of nothing. It must be personal, because it must have chosen to begin the universe at some point, and impersonal causes don't make choices. (Geisler, Norm and Turek, Frank. I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. 93.)

That sure sounds like God to me.[/quote]

And it sounds like leprechauns to me. as well as the flying spaghetti monster. It sounds like ANYTHING that could possibly be supernatural... because supernatural could be anything.

[quote]Wrong again. In theological terms, God is simple, meaning he is not made up of parts.[/quote]

Yeah, Because the trinity doesn't count!

This is a category mistake. Belief in ghosts and the witch trials really aren't religious experiences, and they're certainly not what I'm talking about.

[quote]Unless you can give me some reason that my experiece of God is delusory, the fact of itself that someone claims to experience something counter to my claim doesn't make my claim untrue. Plus, you're starting with the assumption that all religious experiences are similar, and that's quite false if you've actually looked into the experiences of say, Hindus, in comparison to Christians.[/quote]

I am not sure about this, but I think that they found some sort of 'god center' in the brain. While this says nothing about the existance of god, it does hint that spiritual experiances are similiar - like a sense of 'oneness' with the world, a sense of peace.

NO. Strawmen, strawmen. I addressed this in the suicide topic:

[quote]"I am NOT saying that atheists can't live life as if there is a purpose. That is completely untrue, and that point actually furthers my argument. What I am saying is that if atheism is true, there is no ultimate purpose or significance to your life. You can live life as if there is one, as if you are a valuable example of life. Ultimately however there is not, and you aren't valuable, and you are merely decieving yourself."[/quote]

'Eternally' your right. Nothing will matter to me in about 70 or so years. But because of that I choose to believe that my actions right now matter more... but as this is subjective, it really matter little.
I choose to live my life as if there is a purpose, but ultimately the only purpose is my rational happiness - which I think is better than self deprevation and torture that some fundy christians do

[quote]Simply put, you can't be happy and be a real atheist at the same time.[/quote]

Which is just a silly comment. I am perfectly happy and I do not believe in a God. I can take pleasure in the here and now, I do not need a belief in life after death to enjoy a sunset.

[quote]I have one question, why do people believe atheists have to believe in science? one could be an atheist but believe in magic, or astrology, for some. Frankly, this debate has gotten to long for me to be in around the time my thesis is due, but I thought I'd just put that out there[/quote]
Good question.

We believe that atheists have to believe in science because almost all of them do. You'll rarely find an atheist who denies evolution or the Big Bang, though I have seen them around. Most seem to pride themselves on using reason and the scientific method to determine what truth is.

Dude, where is your scientific method? Can I see your notes and experiments? Calculations? Anything?

[quote]Dude, where is your scientific method? Can I see your notes and experiments? Calculations? Anything?[/quote]
Who are you talking to?

[quote]I don't think that it is evidence either way, it is... it doesn't say anything about the who or why...[/quote]
Sure it does. It either says that the creator of the universe is extremely intelligent, or it says that all these extremely fine-tuned constants appeared as a result of chance.

[quote]as there is nothing to compare it to... and the laws of physics work in such a way as to create it... [/quote]
Not really. You must not have done any reading on this. While it may be true for [i]some[/i], there are many that have nothing to do with physics.

[quote]We can prove that the person has an opinion on the supernatural. It says nothing about the actual supernatural, but the opinion itself is real.[/quote]
Works for me.

Now how about addressing what I [i]really[/i] said?

[quote]*this is not sarcasm* why can you not have two infinite beings? I mean as long as you are going to have one... what is stopping another from being?[/quote]
"To distinguish one being from another, they must differ in some way. If they differ in some way, then one lacks something the other has. If one being lacks something the other has, then the lacking being is not infinite because an infinite being, by definition, lacks nothing. So there can only be one infinite being." - Norman Geisler

Therefore, polytheism is false.

[quote]Okay, I understand why you could not have FSM and the Christian god.... but I think that it is possible that there could be two FSM... as long as you believe in the one[/quote]
There could be two FSM as long as either one of them is infinite and another is finite, or they're both finite.

[quote]What do you mean by simple then?[/quote]
Lacking parts.

[quote]Not all the same... just that a vast majority of them are similar (I am sure that there are some that are completely diffrent where the person sees god while being a pickle or something)[/quote]
The vast majority...

Hinduism, the third largest religion in the world, has between 900 million and a billion believers worldwide. They're form of spiritual experience is [i]vastly[/i] different from that of Christianity, but you're going to tell me that the vast majority of spiritual experiences are similar?

[quote]They matter to me, I do not need a God to feel an obligation to humanity[/quote]
...But then he says...
[quote]My CNS sends signals that I unconsciously interpret to be bad when I am tortured... they send better signals when I am happy

Rational happiness means that I don't want to hurt others in my pursuit for the good signals[/quote]
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. An atheist admits that all his life amounts to is a pursuit of a good feeling caused by nothing but some chemical reactions. What's ironic is that right before that, he tried to tell me that he feels an obligation to humanity. But the only reason he feels like doing good to humanity is so he can get a good feeling caused by his chemical reactions. It's not them, it's his own selfish, non-personal feeling.

Surely you also understand that any love you feel for any spouse you may one day have is also nothing but a chemical reaction, and therefore is also mere selfishness.

Case closed, Guruite.

[quote]Atheism does not equal Nihilism.[/quote]
Yes, it does, and many great atheist thinkers agree.

[quote]Why does there need to be an etarnal perspective for there to be morals?[/quote]
Because if this life is all that there is, then there's no good reason why you shouldn't kill anyone who disagrees with you, or rape any girl that walks down the street that you may find attractive.

Their life is finite and pointless, and you're just bringing it's inevitable end sooner.

We're all animals anyway, and there's no objective morality.

[quote]I mean, lets say that some people knew that they would go to hell and there was nothing they could do about it... by your logic they should not care about the rest of humanity because there is noting in it for them.. no reward... [/quote]
For one thing, that's a terrible example. If someone [i]knew[/i] that Hell existed and they were going there, they would certainly take action to stop themselves from going there. Wouldn't you?

But even if they didn't, their life would still have a purpose. If Hell exists, then so does God, and God has given human life a purpose: to glorify Him.

[quote]I don't need the reward of eternal life to be good to humanity,[/quote]
Neither do I, really. If there are no pearly gates or streets of gold, so be it. It's merely a bonus anyway.

But since I believe God exists, I believe that the reason I want to do good to humanity is because it is objectively right, and that objective rightness is grounded in God. I believe that I will be ultimately rewarded for this behavior, but in all honesty, it doesn't matter; I do it because it's [i]right[/i]. And if there is no God, then there is no [i]right[/i], only your personal moral sentiments that are merely relative.

[quote]If you think that humanity does need that reward to be good, then you have a very low opinion of humanity.[/quote]
Fortunately, I don't. But what I do believe is that the only reason we have a sense of what is "good" is because we have God. If there is no God, there is no "good."

[quote]Sorta... Chance is not the word I would use ... more like natural laws...[/quote]
I hope you realize that some of the things that are finely tuned [i]are[/i] things we call "natural laws."

[quote]As for the who and why... (i think this was mentioned before) it does not favor the christian god above the Hindu many.[/quote]
Which is why it's not an argument for Christianity being true, but merely that God exists.

But I do think that given the evidence presented in the beginning of the universe, a monotheistic deity makes the most sense rather than many. Plus, there's always the argument I made earlier about two infinite beings being impossible.

[quote]I guess not, could you give me an example of things that have nothing to do with physics that (I believe this is where I was going) have to do with the formation of the universe... but I might be going in a completly diffrent direction... [/quote]
Here are a few:

1) On earth, the oxygen level is 21% in our atmosphere. If it were, say, 25%, then fires would spontaneously erupt all over the place, preventing life. If it was 15%, we would suffocate.

2) If the transparency of our atmosphere was any less, we would recieve too much solar radiation. If it were any greater, not enough would reach us. These all tie in to the precice levels of nitrogen, oxogen, carbon dioxide, and ozone that are also anthropic constants.

3) If the gravitational interaction between the moon and Earth were any greater, tidal effects would be too great. If it were any less, orbital changes would cause great climate difficulties. Either way, life wouldn't be possible.

4) If Jupiter wasn't in it's current orbit, space materials like asteroids and comets would be constantly hitting Earth. The gravitational field of Jupiter acts as a vacuum.

5) If the Earth's crust were any thicker, too much oxygen would be absorbed by it to create life. And if it was any thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would also prohibit life.

I definitely could go on. None of these have to do with the physics that caused the universe, though there are plenty of finely tuned constants that were involved with that process, like the fact that if the universe had expanded at a rate [i]one millionth[/i] more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself in a fireball before any stars had formed. If it was faster, no galaxies would have formed either.

In all, we've discovered 122 constants like this. If even one wasn't in place, life probably wouldn't exist. The odds of these occuring by chance, as calculated by Hugh Ross, are 10 to the 138th power. I'll let you write that out.

[quote]I am sorry about this and I am not dodging the question... what did you say... I looked up at your posts and it seemed to talk about opinion on god and the supernatural... [/quote]
We were talking about noor's statement that if God is not in the natural realm, he can't act within it. But she merely asserted this, not actually saying why, and so I asked her if she had anything more than her opinion.

It's really not a very good opinion, so I don't recommend you defend it. She doesn't seem to be aware that if I'm not in a box of Frosted Flakes, I can still act within the box if I want to.

[quote]Ok, sounds good, but what if by 'infinite' they were talking about some sort of asymptotic relationship ... Zeus is infinite... in the feild of thunderbolt throwing, where Ares is infinite in the field of war? (I know that they did not claim that their gods were infinite... but the point still stands)[/quote]
Well, you said it yourself...They're not infinite. There can be a lot of [i]finite[/i] beings. They may be infinite in one aspect, but the God of monotheism is infinite in [i]all[/i] aspects, and that can't occur in multiple beings simultaneously.

[quote]Things can be infinite in one field and not in another (well, They could) and would be infinite - just never touch on another field[/quote]
See above. I never said this wasn't possible.

[quote](there is infinity between 0 and 1 and between 1 and 2..what if one god was between 0 and 1 and another between 1 and 2... I know that god's are not numbers... but this sorta illistrates my point a little better)[/quote]
There is a [i]potential[/i] infinite between 0 and 1, not an [i]actual[/i] infinite. You can keep dividing and dividing forever, but that misses the point: it ends at 0 and 1. Actual infinities have no end.

[quote]So Jesus and the Holy Spirit are lacking parts? and if so which parts? The material kind?[/quote]
[i]Yes[/i]. They are not physical entities. They lack a material body.

This is similar to the Laws of Logic. They are not physical, but they are undeniably real. Same with all the thoughts you're thinking, all the moral judgements you make...Even "science" itself is a nonphysical, but real thing.

[quote]How? I mean a Christians experience would involve the virgin mary or something like that... and not the god shiva... but other than that what is so different? (I honestly don't think it makes that much diffrence... so if one feels oneness and the other feels like eating chochlate ... you win... I just don't think that there is that much diffrence)[/quote]
When a Christian has a spiritual experience, he feels the love of God on him. He feels comforted from the stress, the "peace that passes understanding." He feels like he's being wrapped in loving arms and that everything will be okay. The overall stress of the Christian's experience is the love of God. This may lead to a changed life, from say an drug dealer and non-Christian to a Christian who teaches Sunday School and is an incredible father. Someone I am directly related to has had this occur in his life.

When a Hindu has a spiritual experience, he is experiencing his subsumption in the Whole. Hindus believe that all the physical world is an illusion, all part of one all-encompassing [i]Brahma[/i]. They never experience this kind of love at all. You don't even have to believe in any gods at all to be a Hindu. This is obviously quite different from the Christian experience.

[quote]no, that chemical reaction comes from doing good,[/quote]
That is circular, my friend. You're telling me that things are good when you get a "good feeling," however subjective that is. But now you're telling me that things were good already. The reason you have the feeling in the first place is because they already are good apart from feelings.

That certainly sounds like objective morality, and without God, that is simply not possible.

[quote]and pursuing my rational self interest.[/quote]
What happens if someone got a "good feeling" when they tortured, killed, and cannibalized a child? If you don't agree with this practice, would you still consider it "rational self interest?"

[quote]Doing good for humanity is an evolutionistic (is that a word? haha) trait - it evolved.[/quote]
The word is "evolutionary." But Guruite, did you not see the six reasons I gave noor that explain why the possibility of morality evolving like this is impossible? You're going to have to deal with those first.

[quote]I see that good feeling as stemming from rational self interest, an obligation towards humanity comes from a rational self interest (It comes behind an obligation to yourself...)[/quote]
See my question about the cannibal killer.

[quote]No, atheism does not equal nihilism. Nihilism is an absense of values, atheism is nothing but a absense of a belief in god, it says nothing about your value system (other than that god does not factor in)[/quote]
Of course. Once again, I never said you couldn't have values as an atheist, or anything else. I merely pointed out that it's a [i]consequence[/i] of your worldview. It's not a central tenant, because most atheists feel uncomfortable about that...Like you.

[quote]I don't feel this way, and i would say that most atheists agree[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Yes any love that I feel for my spouse is only a chemical signal (or electric ... a chemical/electric signal) - that is all that is ME. I have no consciousness other than chemical/electric signals. You make it seem like chemical reactions and electric signals are not enough.. that is what makes us up...[/quote]
So you deny that conciousness exists?

[quote]I was taking it from a deterministic standpoint... like Jehovas witnesses[/quote]
I am not a Jehovah's Witness, nor do I believe in determinism. I fully believe in free will.

[quote]Again, I think that we can have an objective right without god - it comes from selfishness, yes.[/quote]
"Good feelings" you happen to get are completely subjective. This does not provide you with any sort of basis for objective morality, yet you believe it exists.

Thus, we see that the conclusion that God exists follows deductively.

[quote]But rational selfishness, not irrational raping and pillaging. [/quote]
Why are either of those wrong, Guruite? Is it because you happen to get a bad feeling when discussing them?

[quote]Here are a few:

1) On earth, the oxygen level is 21% in our atmosphere. If it were, say, 25%, then fires would spontaneously erupt all over the place, preventing life. If it was 15%, we would suffocate.

2) If the transparency of our atmosphere was any less, we would recieve too much solar radiation. If it were any greater, not enough would reach us. These all tie in to the precice levels of nitrogen, oxogen, carbon dioxide, and ozone that are also anthropic constants.

3) If the gravitational interaction between the moon and Earth were any greater, tidal effects would be too great. If it were any less, orbital changes would cause great climate difficulties. Either way, life wouldn't be possible.

4) If Jupiter wasn't in it's current orbit, space materials like asteroids and comets would be constantly hitting Earth. The gravitational field of Jupiter acts as a vacuum.

5) If the Earth's crust were any thicker, too much oxygen would be absorbed by it to create life. And if it was any thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would also prohibit life.[/quote]

No 1 and 2 happen because we have evolved to suit this climate - if we had much more carbon/nitrogen then either life could not exist or it would have evolved to exist with it

The rest can be explained by chance. The universe is so big that eventually there will be a planet that fuffills the requirements for some sort of life. - that life evolves to better suit its needs and it could eventually lead to a reasoning species
[quote]
We were talking about noor's statement that if God is not in the natural realm, he can't act within it. But she merely asserted this, not actually saying why, and so I asked her if she had anything more than her opinion.

It's really not a very good opinion, so I don't recommend you defend it. She doesn't seem to be aware that if I'm not in a box of Frosted Flakes, I can still act within the box if I want to.[/quote]

As I have no clue what it is to not be in the natureal realm, I can neither assume that something can act on the natural or is real.... so Yes, it is all opinion...
i personally think that since atheists do not believe in the unnatural (generally) ... we cannot make generalizations or assumptions about it.
[quote]
the God of monotheism is infinite in all aspects,

and that can't occur in multiple beings simultaneously.[/quote]

The first point - Okay, just making sure.
No2 - yes it cannot occur, one cannot have two infinitly green and blue creatures

Okay, By infinite in all aspects, you imply one of the greatest contradictions that I can think of. God is both infinitly green and blue, he is by far the most evil, cunning and malicious being ever, and yet at the same time he is the most caring gentile, loving thing ever. God has all forms and yet none of them. He is infinitly humanish and gremlinish, and dwarfish, and fishish, and Finnish, and danish, and anyother ish's that you want to put in.

God is infinitely stupid, yet smarter than anyone, he is infinitely nonexistent and yet exists more than anything. He is bigger than a universe, and yet smaller than an atom. Infinitely libertarian and infinitely communistic, he holds infinitely contradictory beliefs and yet his beliefs are more correct than anyone's. He is both able to see everything and is infinitely blind (whatever that means)

Your god is a contradiction - he has infinite compassion and yet infinitely hates everyone of us.

[quote]Yes. They are not physical entities. They lack a material body.[/quote]

Okay, But they are infinitely material? - as god is infinitely material

[quote]That is circular, my friend. You're telling me that things are good when you get a "good feeling," however subjective that is. But now you're telling me that things were good already. The reason you have the feeling in the first place is because they already are good apart from feelings.

That certainly sounds like objective morality, and without God, that is simply not possible.[/quote]

No, things are not always good when they give you a good feeling, they are good when they promote your rational self interest (I should restate this... MOST (not all... some psychopaths) people find some happiness in promoting their rational self interest.)

[quote]When a Christian has a spiritual experience, he feels the love of God on him. He feels comforted from the stress, the "peace that passes understanding." He feels like he's being wrapped in loving arms and that everything will be okay. The overall stress of the Christian's experience is the love of God. This may lead to a changed life, from say an drug dealer and non-Christian to a Christian who teaches Sunday School and is an incredible father. Someone I am directly related to has had this occur in his life.

When a Hindu has a spiritual experience, he is experiencing his subsumption in the Whole. Hindus believe that all the physical world is an illusion, all part of one all-encompassing Brahma. They never experience this kind of love at all. You don't even have to believe in any gods at all to be a Hindu. This is obviously quite different from the Christian experience.[/quote]

Oh, I meant more of a sense of oneness with the universe (which both seem to have... they seem to interpret it diffrently) Hindus interpret this warm fuzzy feeling of oneness to mean that they are in a group

Christians interpret it to mean that Jesus is giving them a Hug and tha they should turn their life around

My point is that each persons spiritual experiences are what they expect them to be. - But yes in details the experiances are diffrent

[quote]What happens if someone got a "good feeling" when they tortured, killed, and cannibalized a child? If you don't agree with this practice, would you still consider it "rational self interest?"[/quote]

Rational self interest means that you do whatever you think will make you happy unless it interferes in someone elses rights. So no, even if you do get a good feeling when you hurt children it is not a rational self interest, it is a pursuit of a feeling that hurts others.

[quote]The word is "evolutionary." But Guruite, did you not see the six reasons I gave noor that explain why the possibility of morality evolving like this is impossible? You're going to have to deal with those first.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction (I was - no joke, preparing a church lesson on the holy spirit at that time (it actually went over quite well) - and so was a little distracted)

I do not remember seeing the 6 points - ill need to check back on this one

[quote] Of course. Once again, I never said you couldn't have values as an atheist, or anything else. I merely pointed out that it's a consequence of your worldview. It's not a central tenant, because most atheists feel uncomfortable about that...Like you.[/quote]

I might be misunderstanding this, but I think that we get our morality because of our worldview. Most people see the world similar and have basic morality - we all have this because we have a trait (for some reason... I suggest evolution.. it could be just rationality... or god) that makes us like some sort of society. We enjoy physical comforts and because of this we can reason that maintainitn the order of society is good. however we also like freedom. So the obvious answer is to allow as much freedom as possible without destroying society. I think that this line is clearly cut at rights... we can do whatever we want as long as it does not hurt anothers rights.

No, I think that you hit it right on - but I might be confused here. Most peopel have a subjective sense of right and wrong (emotions) however that is not always in line with reason's right and wrong (but it mostly is). And by being rational and using reason we can understand the objective right and wrong

Oh, BTW, in a way it is subjective. If one holds values in diffrent order (very few do) then it does not apply logically) - Such that if you hold (lets say) your computers functioning abilities above your own life, you will not abide by some laws - you will steal computer parts if you do not have enough money instead of making money.

So in a way, yes morality is subjective, however typically all living organisms hold the same prime value - their own life - at the top.
(BTW, Parents who hold their child's life above their own are Irrational on some level. However, I understand that irrational emotional drive... I personally think that that emotional drive would contribute greatly to any species existence and therefore is a strong evolutionary trait)

- To try to clear things up, Morality is only objective if we are rational about it, if we hold to emotions then it becomes slightly subjective, and if we hold to irrational concepts then it becomes very subjective. - but this could way off the point
[quote]
[quote]I don't feel this way, and i would say that most atheists agree[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

I will try to explain why I feel this way, and I think that most other atheists feel this way because we are not known as a group of mass serial killers. (or a violent group as a whole)

[quote]So you deny that conciousness exists?[/quote]

No, just that it is electrical impulses and chemical interactions that drive it - I think that everyone accepts this (just remove someone's ability to make dopamine and see what happens - or any other neurotransmitter)

I am not a determinist, but that is an argument for another thread

[quote]I am not a Jehovah's Witness, nor do I believe in determinism. I fully believe in free will[/quote]

I am not and I do not and I do to. (funny how determinism came up in two completly diffrent points)

I believe that JW's believe that only 144000 people will go to heaven. This has been foreordained by god (according to them) and God has already chosen which 144000 will get to go and there is nothing that one can do to get in.

If you knew (somehow) that you were not one of God's chosen, and that he would not change his mind, would you still be moral (I think was my question)

[quote]"Good feelings" you happen to get are completely subjective. This does not provide you with any sort of basis for objective morality, yet you believe it exists.

Thus, we see that the conclusion that God exists follows deductively.[/quote]

Good feelings are not objective, just something to strive for. However the objective part comes in when you realize that the only moral wrong is taking another person's rights away. Good feelings are totally subjective, and as such hold no moral weight (other than you should proably do what is best for you... but no one should physically stop you if you really want to harm yourself)

Let me put it this way, It is a good idea to put what is best for yourself first - However, you can do what you want because that is often subjective.

Rights are objective (again, another thread) and since morality is based solely on those rights, morality is objective

I guess that 'rational self interest' includes the first part of doing what is best for yourself.
[quote]
Why are either of those wrong, Guruite? Is it because you happen to get a bad feeling when discussing them?[/quote]

Rapeing and pillaging are wrong because they involve taking away another persons rights - the initiation of force

[quote=P-Dunn]Noor,

[quote=noor]By saying that he can't do the [b]impossible[/b], you're attempting to gain control of defining him. Other theists will disagree with your definition of a god, which one is right?[/quote]
The emphasis is mine.

The very definition of "impossible" is that it cannot be done. Something that is logically impossible is not within the realms of omnipotence. [/quote]

Who created this limit in your theology?

If god created this limit himself, then it pretty much falls flat.

If it was not god, then god isn't superior anymore, is he?

If you say that "logic is part of god's nature" then:

1. Ontological error: something beyond nature cannot have a nature.

2. Epistemological blunder: logic refers to arguments, to symbols, not referents

3. Logical - to say that it is 'part of god's nature' does nothing to solve the problem, it still remains: can 'god' change his 'nature'?

If yes, then return to problem 1 above.

If no, return to problem number 2 above.

Oh, and also if god's omnipotence is limited to only things that are logically possible, then you're placing him inside the realm of logic. But god is supposed to be outside/beyond logic. If he is beyond logic, he can do things that are beyond logic too. If you start saying that he is inside logic, then he isn't superior anymore.

Get it?

[quote]I know other theists disagree. But as I said, my view has plenty of Biblical support. If you merely care to sit on the fence, then that's your business.[/quote]

Other theists will say their view also has biblical support. You can debate with another christian theist who disagrees with you and they will also claim their view has more biblical support.

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

You're starting from a faulty definition of omnipotence and making a huge error as a result. [b][i]Nothing that compromises God's omnipotence is under the realm of omnipotence.[/i][/b] Is it that hard to understand, or are you just being desperate in wanting to retain your argument?

I don't have the patience for this type of argumentation anymore.[/quote]

*rolls eyes*

See what I wrote above about the omnipotence paradox, it would be nice to see it rebutted.

[quote][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.[/quote]
So for now, you're just going to assume that the singularity came here from nothing for no reason, and then birthed an enourmous, incredibly fine-tuned universe?[/quote]

I don't assume anything, I base them on hard scientific facts. It took billions of years for the universe to come to the state it is today. Have you read something like A Brief History of Time or any book on cosmology?

[quote][quote]Did you bother to read the link as to how life came about?[/quote]
I read a bit. It seemed to be about abiogenesis and evolution, which is a completely seperate topic from what we're discussing right now.[/quote]

I'm not trying to get you into an offtopic discussion on that, I was trying to show you that life did not necessarily need a god to come about.

[quote]It also seems to miss an important point...He's creating all these colored balls and shuffling with them, right? Of course they will do what he wants when the outcome is predermined. Evolution is not, and is a purely naturalistic force. The balls would have to come into existence through the action of purely naturalistic forces, and the shuffling of them would have to happen being acted on by no one or thing.[/quote]

Oh, the old "unmoved mover" argument. What peer-reviewed article that claims an unmoved mover was needed to put them in motion, can you give me? From a scientific journal?

[quote][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]
I'm dodging the point? What about the point I just made? Do you not understand that it merely moves the question of origin somewhere else and does not actually solve the problem? For that story to make any sense, there has to be evidence that abiogenesis can occur. As of now, your theory stands on practically nothing at all. [/quote]

Scientists have observed traces of water (or other liquids) on other planets, which could possibly signify a sign of life. Then you dodge the point and say that scientists are clueless as to how life came about on earth and they make up insane ideas, and I believe them too. I pointed out that I do not believe them until there is direct evidence, and also that they are basing the idea that life on earth came from other planets because of the traces of water.

[url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html]We have created primitive signs of life in a lab[/url], from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[quote]And guess what? It most likely can't. It's the same situation as what's happening in that website of yours. When scientists conduct experiments to try and create life, then there is intelligence involved in the process. It's not a natural process that your theory would require, and so it's not reliable.

I don't have to try to make panspermia sound ridiculous, noor. It already is, and it shows how some atheists will accept the wildest of theories so they don't have to "let a divine foot in the door."[/quote]

Go ahead and show me a science article to back up your claims that a spirit created life. I would really, [i]really[/i] love to read something like that. Nothing from an apologetics website though, a scientific website only.

[quote][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.[/quote]

Yet what difference does it make? Why can't supernatural beings act within the natural realm? Do you have any reason what I should believe this outside of your own personal opinion?[/quote]

Can you use math (which exists in an abstract world) to create a physical force? Why not?

[quote]An interesting question here that sort of pertains. If you pick up a box, is it a violation of the laws of gravity?[/quote]

No, because lifting a box is not freefall. (if the box is light enough to hold in a person's hands) The basic laws of gravity state that objects are attracted to each other. There is a gravitational force, very tiny, between me and my desk, but the earth's gravity pulls us both with a much stronger force.

Back to the box, the box is still attracted to me by a very minimal force when I'm holding it. The reason why the earth's gravity does not pull the box down is because my hand is holding it. If I lift the box in an upward direction, my arms are exerting a force stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the box (as a side note, which can be calculated by the equation F=G((mass1 * mass2)/d^2) and G equals 6.67E-11 Nm^2/kg^2).

[quote]If [b]God[/b] picks up a box, is it a violation of the law of gravity? If so, why?[/quote]

If god picks the physical box up he would also have to apply a physical force stronger than the earth's gravitational force.

[quote][quote]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]
But, once again, you've started with a faulty definition of what constitutes "all-powerful."

The philosopher Thomas Aquinas addressed this in his Summa Theologia.

[i]"Whatever implies being and nonbeing simultaneously is incompatible with the absolute possibility which falls under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. Better, however, to say that it cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it."[/i]

Something has to be possible in order to do it.[/quote]

Again, who/what determined this limit?

[quote]There are many things impossible for God, but that doesn't make him not omnipotent. For example, God couldn't answer contradicting prayers. He could not answer prayers for the Colts to win the Super Bowl [i]and[/i] prayers for the Bears to win the Super Bowl. That doesn't mean he's not omnipotent...It means he can't do logically impossible things. He can't lie, according to Hebrews 6:18. He certainly can't make 2+2=5, or a circle with corners.

These aren't any trouble to a theist, though. For us, asking God to create a rock so big he can't lift it is like someone asking, "What flavor is Tuesday?" or, "Are you a married bachelor?" It's simply a contradictory question.

Your argument against omnipotence fails because it makes a massive category mistake. Simple as that.[/quote]

You say that god cannot do things that are logically impossible. You are fitting god into the realms of logic, when god is supposed to be beyond logic.

If god is beyond logic, then he can do things that are logically impossible.

Don't you get it?

(And don't deny that god is beyond logic, you implied that logic/reasoning comes from god. Your god has to be beyond logic then. Also, please address my question about who/what placed these limits on him.)

[quote][quote]When did I say "emotional possessions"? You're again attempting to define him your particular way.[/quote]
You didn't, but that's what your definition of "perfection" is. That's talking about desires.

It's here that you've come to a contradiction in your arguments. First, you assert that omnipotence means that God must be able to do [i]anything[/i], even contradict himself and do things that are logically impossible. Then you assert that God [i]cannot[/i] want. But even if it seems contradictory, as you said, he must be able to do it.

Therefore, by your own admission, God can want. Sorry noor, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.[/quote]

Again, the omnipotence issue. See above and rebutt my arguments first.

[quote][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]
I don't believe I have "defined" anything as evil in this conversation. Please stay on topic.

Do you agree with these "xtians" that certain things are evil? Do you believe in a sense of good and evil? For you to complain that God is not stopping it, there must be a reason that you want it to be stopped, or else your argument falls flat. And if you agree with them that it is evil, how did you come to that conclusion?[/quote]

No, I do not label things as good or evil in a religious sense of the word. "Evil" as in morality is an involuntary violation of rights, but that's for a separate topic.

[quote][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]
But you're [u][b][i]contradicting yourself.[/u][/i][/b] Do you not understand that?[/quote]

Where am I contradicting myself?

Do you now understand the omnipotence paradox?

[quote][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]
You're begging the question of whether they're really "fallacies," noor. Do you even know what that means?[/quote]

Of course I do. Do you?

I am not assuming they are fallacies at first glance, I study the premises and I realize there is a contradiction. How is that begging the question?

[quote][quote]Oh, so you just jump to conclusions again.[/quote]
So in other words, you have no response?

I applaud you and your critical thinking skills.[/quote]

All right, Hume's Dictum refers to physical vs. supernatural objects. Logic and math exist in an abstract world and Hume's Dictum lies in the field of logic which is abstract. Abstract things come from the human mind. Supernatural things are supposed to exist in the outside world. You're confusing supernatural/immaterial with abstract.

[quote][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]
Typos aside, I know what you're saying. There is, once again, a misunderstanding of what we're talking about. I swear, noor, you really need to check your arguments for strawmen before you post them.

We're not talking about God's love for us. We're talking about our love for God. If God created mindless robots who had no option to not love him, then it's not true love that he is recieving; it is forced love. Whether God loves us is 100% irrelevant.[/quote]

So god [i]wants[/i] true love from us? What for?

[quote][quote]Do you even understand what omnibenevolence is? It means that god is all-good, and god would not let anything "bad" happen no matter how evil man was. Unless man is infinitely sinful.[/quote]
I completely understand what omnibevolence means, but you don't seem to be able to define it without making assumptions about what an omnibevolent being would and wouldn't do.

To this, I merely ask you again..."Is there anything wrong with anything and why?"[/quote]

My personal view on morality is that wrong is when you violate my rights. Other people will have a different view though.

And answer my question about why an infinitely good god would punish man for a finite sin. Infinite punishment for a finite sin is infinitely injust.

I know you're going to start off all about how it's "only my opinion", but I'm using logic here. God is infinitely good, man is finitely evil. God's goodness should overcome man's finite sins for an infinite extent.

[quote][quote]Then get some solid premises for your beliefs first.[/quote]
Well, I do know there's no Biblical support for that idea. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that people with no chance of finding out about Jesus automatically get placed into Hell. Can you find me somewhere that it does?[/quote]

Doesn't the bible say that people who have not accepted Jesus are going to hell?

[quote][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]
Of course, this is yet another situation where a simple contexualized reading will yield an important truth. When Jesus said calling someone a fool made you in danger of Hellfire, he was talking about calling your "brother" (something we understand to be not physical brothers) would result in this. The Pharisees weren't his bretheren, and so calling the Pharisees "fools" wasn't a violation of his rule.

And also, there's a linguistic factor in play here. Apologetics Press has [url=http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/596]this[/url] to add:

[i]"First, for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22 to contradict His actions recorded in other passages, the skeptic must prove that the term “fool,” as used in 5:22, is the same word used elsewhere. The word raca (Greek ΄ρακά), used earlier in Matthew 5:22, is a transliteration of the Aramaic term whose precise meaning is disputed. [Most likely, it means “an empty one who acts as a numskull” (Lenski, 1961, p. 219; cf. also Robertson, 1930, p. 44).] The exact meaning of the term “fool” (mōre, Greek Μωρέ) in this context also is debated. “Most scholars take it, as the ancient Syrian versions did, to men you fool” (Bauer, et. al., 1957, p. 533, emp. in orig.). Although some assume that mōre is the vocative of the Greek moros, in all likelihood,

just as “Raca” is a non-Greek word, so is the word mōre that Jesus used here. If so, then it is a word which to a Jewish ear meant “rebel (against God)” or “apostate”; it was the word which Moses in exasperation used to the disaffected Israelites in the wilderness of Zin…(Numbers 20:10). For these rash words, uttered under intense provocation, Moses was excluded from the Promised Land (Kaiser, et. al., 1996, p. 359).

Thus, it is quite possible that mōre (translated “[Y]ou fool” in Matthew 5:22) is not the normal Greek moros (fool) that Jesus applied to the Pharisees on other occasions (Matthew 23:17,19), but represents the Hebrew moreh (cf. Numbers 20:10). [For this reason, translators of the American Standard Version added a marginal note to this word in Matthew 5:22: “Or, Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation.”] Obviously, if two different words are under consideration, Jesus logically could not be considered a hypocrite.[/i]"[/quote]

I was NOT talking about Jesus being a hypocrite, you missed the point about Paul.

[quote][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]
Except that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you why it's necessary for this to be mentioned.

I never claimed to be sure that God had revealed himself to any sort of intelligent life. I merely pointed out that Premise One rests on an assumption that is unprovable.[/quote]

Oh, okay.

[quote][quote]Wouldn't god's perfect word have the answer to my question?[/quote]
I'm sorry to reveal this unbearable truth to you noor, but the Bible is not a newspaper, or a self-help book, or anything that will answer all the questions in life.[/quote]

I'm not asking that you can use your holy babble to help me with my life problems or anything. I was asking you a simple question: if the bible is god's perfect word, why wouldn't it have the answer to why we were created for a comparatively short period of time?

You're dodging the question by simply stating that the babble is not a self-help book.

[quote][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]
We are not talking about Hell, noor, so why did you bring this up? This is merely a red herring and an evasion tactic that you're using.

Some clarifications, though...I do not believe that Hell is a physical place, as some Christians do. I believe the accounts of fire are purely and obviously metaphorical.[/quote]

I'm showing you how irrational your religion is. Even if you believe hell is a state of separation, still that doesn't work. Whichever way, god came to save us from a hell (whether physical or not) that he himself created.

[quote][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]
I don't find it surprising at all. If God is a good God, in my opinion, free will is necessary. And if people are going to utilize their free will and be successful, then that's great.

Of course, Christian theists also believe that they will spend eternity in Heaven. In contrast, all the success and wealth that nonbelievers accumulate will amount to nothing after they are dead and seperated from God.[/quote]

I'm not talking about the afterlife. And besides, you admitted you can't prove the soul exists. First you answer my omnipotence questions and use logic to prove your god, then we'll talk about the soul.

[quote][quote]Only one country versus the rest of the world?[/quote]
One country that the particular survey mentions, at least.

How reliable is this survey anyway?[/quote]

Even if you think the survey isn't reliable, you can look up the facts about nonreligious countries yourself and analyze them.

[quote][quote]And just what makes you think that the xian god was not inspired by the gods from other religions??[/quote]
If you're going to claim that, then you need to demonstrate it, since the burden of proof rests on he (or she) that accuses. It should be interesting to watch you try. But despite that, this is not answer to what I said.[/quote]

[url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/4979]Deludedgod's essay that sort of pertains[/url]

Most of the gods that existed before the xian god were also invisible, all-powerful, good, and all-knowing, for one. Hindus believe that the Buddha (despite his atheism) was Vishnu come down to earth in the form of a human being. And that's not the only one, other pagan myths share similarities to the christian story. The apologist Justin Martyr admits a lot of this in [url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html]Apologia I[/url] also (in an attempt to make it easier for pagans to convert to christianity):

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire."

[quote][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]
Or, disproving the statement "There is no largest number," is also quite possible.[/quote]

True.

[quote]Unfortunately, atheists' attempts to show contradictory natures in God merely rest on assumptions, and that's about as far as they go.[/quote]

The irony, a christian is talking to me about assumptions.

[quote][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]
It's interesting that you accuse me of not believing in ghosts when I've never said that I do or don't.[/quote]

That's all you've got?

If you do believe in ghosts, then I might have to stop taking you seriously.

If you don't, why don't you believe in them since there is "evidence"?

[quote][quote]You're not in the best position to criticize any form of atheism either, then.[/quote]
This is fundamentally different, noor. Open theism is directed at merely one aspect of God's nature, and if open theism is wrong, then one can still believe in God. Atheism, on the other hand, is talking about the entirety of God.[/quote]

If open theism is wrong, then more parts of god's nature would render him impossible. Like the "Can god change his future mind?" and "God knew that people are going to hell, yet he created them?" arguments would be valid if open theism is false.

So essentially, according to your view, if open theism is false god would be impossible even according to you.

[quote][quote]Again, omnipotence means all-powerful. Infinitely powerful.[/quote]
...Except not powerful enough to act in the universe or want, right? Isn't that your definition as well?[/quote]

Go ahead and explain away my explanation of the omnipotence paradox, I'd like to see you deal with that.

An omnipotent god is impossible. That's why I leave out his "omnipotence" when dealing with other aspects of his nature.

[quote][quote]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]
Once you come to terms with the contradiction in your belief of what omnipotence is, we'll talk about omniscience.[/quote]

I already did. You need to go ahead and rebutt it now.

[quote][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]
Simply because Satan cannot enter heaven.[/quote]

Prove it.

[quote][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]
Do you find it interesting that William of Occam believed in God?[/quote]

Maybe it was because they had no clue as to how we came about? No idea about evolution or the big bang? William of Ockam lived from 1288 to 1348! Can you imagine how little about the natural sciences they knew back then, compared to the modern day?

[quote]Occam's Razor is merely used to say that we shouldn't assume that God created the universe when there are "simpler" possibilities. You can't [b]disprove[/b] the existence of God using Occam's Razor, and if you think you can, you don't understand it.[/quote]

When did I say it is a direct disproof against god?

And besides, all you've got for me is a form of argument from authority and an assumption (that I think it is a direct disproof of god.)

[quote][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]
Who says I'm believing in something without direct evidence for it? I think you are confusing "proof" with "evidence," here, noor. I have evidence that our materials aren't all that there is, that there may be a soul behind our body. But I don't have [i]proof[/i].[/quote]

Show me your evidence, it should be interesting. And you said, "may be" - so if there is evidence a soul [i]might[/i] exist, then you are still partly assuming it.

[quote]It doesn't follow necesarilly, but it logically does follow that if the Christian God exists, then the soul exists. It is, in fact, a Biblical teaching. People can disregard the Bible if they so wish to, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of the soul is in the Bible.[/quote]

You're using the bible to prove the soul now? And please, go ahead and deal with my questions about your god.

[quote][quote]We can't stick the parts together and form a living human because life starts with the already-alive egg and sperm.[/quote]
Okay, then. Can you explain why one body is dead and another is alive? They both contain the same chemicals and materials, so why is a body alive in one minute and dead in another? What arrangement of stuff can account for conciousness?[/quote]

Because the sperm/egg cells are dead when the overall body is dead. Don't you get it?

[quote][quote]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]
Meh.[/quote]

Oh, I knew you wouldn't have much to say on a scientific article.

Science typically tends to take a somewhat agnostic/secular view on theology, so you can't claim that article is from a so-called "fundy atheist" site.

[quote][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?[/quote]
Because, if all of life is merely based on chemical reactions, then all of your decisions and thoughts are controlled by chemical reactions in your brain.[/quote]

Free will = The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Are you telling me that the brain chemical reactions are "external"??

And besides, even in your case, in which the christian god gave us freewill instead of controlling us, aren't we still controlled by our chemical reactions?

[quote]You should read William Provine, an atheist scientist who doesn't believe in free will.[/quote]

You should also read other theists who don't believe in free will also.

[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]
Well, many atheists have active disbelief, and so your all-encompassing definition isn't really valid.[/quote]

Many, [i]but not all[/i]. There's a difference. Atheists generally accept evolution and the big bang, but there are exceptions.

[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]
Out of curiosity, since last time I checked we were talking about the Christian God, why can't I quote the Bible, the official book of the Christian religion?

If the Christian God exists, then so does the soul.[/quote]

Because the bible does not serve as proof for the christian god or soul. It's assuming the bible is true and written by god.

[quote]Can you prove to me that you exist? If not, then why should you or I believe that you do?[/quote]

I think, therefore I exist. Thinking is consciousness, consciousness is reality, reality is existence. How can I think and not exist?

Can you prove to me that you exist, too?

[quote]How about the external world? Does that exist? Can you prove it?[/quote]

Can you?

The external world does exist because I can sense it with my five basic senses.

[quote]How about abiogenesis? Can you prove that life can spontaneously generate from nonlife without the aid of an intelligent force? If not, [i]why believe it?[/i][/quote]

[url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html]Yes.[/url]

Now, about you: Can [i]you[/i] prove that life was created by a spirit? Show me one scientific article about an immaterial spirit creating life!

If you can't, why believe it?

[quote][quote]You want to say there's something as the supernatural or immaterial? I say you're "paracorrect" in doing so.[/quote]
So you just copied someone's sig line instead of answering what I said?[/quote]

Because your entire paragraphs about the supernatural are baseless assertions without any real evidence for them. Show me one scientific article that says anything supernatural is real.

[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]
No, because they weren't dead, and they weren't staying in Heaven forever. They would soon be returning back, and I see no reason for God to have done such a thing in this case. I mean, if NDEs are real, then they happen for a reason.[/quote]

Okay.

You said, "they would soon be returning back", are you saying that god knew in advance if they would be returning or not?

If yes, then you've completely contradicted yourself since you say you are an open theist, since you say that god cannot know about the future.

If no, then god didn't know who would be returning back to earth, and the people would forget their past on earth and not remember anything when they "return".

[quote][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]
Prove it. If you can't, then why believe it?[/quote]

I said "probably". Aren't you even reading anything I say?

If you're asking me to prove the big bang, then [url=http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm]check this out[/url].

The most basic evidence for the big bang is that the universe is continually expanding and at some point it must have been all together in a singularity. The Doppler effect, measuring the red shifts of galaxies, minerals in stars and galaxies, etc. all serve as proof of it. Please study cosmology.

[quote]By the way, when will you decide to address my argument against an actual infinity?[/quote]

[quote][quote]You're not getting it. The universe is not eternal, you're getting the terms universe and matter mixed up.[/quote]
It doesn't matter. Universe...matter...all of the things we're talking about can fall under the category of the impossibility of an actual infinite. You're dodging the argument.

So explain how matter can exist eternally.[/quote]

The law of thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed and we have never seen it broken. If this law is broken, then the entire matter-is-eternal law will likely change. That's how science works.

Can you scientifically prove to me that matter was created by a spirit?

[quote][quote]When you claim that god is timeless, you are essentially stating that god does not exist in the time continuum.[/quote]
Right; he is outside of time, but can act within it. And the problem is what?[/quote]

Ontological error: if god is outside of time, he cannot have time. He had no time to create time.

[quote][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]
Perhaps the 120 cosmological constants and otherwise fine-tuning of the universe that you undoubtedly believe were simply given by chance, or something along those lines.

Some consider this to be the strongest evidence for God.[/quote]

From [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html]here[/url]:

"From the viewpoint of utility, the motions of heavenly bodies are empty and meaningless. No one in his proper senses can discern the slightest trace of design in stellar gyrations and the ceaseless spinning of globes. Of what use is it to the human race (the so-called "end-all" of existence) to be hurled through the heavens at 18 miles a second? What good does it do any of us to be catapulted through the skies and whirled at the same time? What good does it do God's lesser masterpieces -- the toads, tarantulas and typhus germs -- to participate in these celestial rides? Why the silly goose-chase, the merry-go-round of the spheres over such protracted periods of time?

To ascribe these aimless and senseless activities to intelligence is to insult intelligence. Only a charitable sense of humor can help one to overlook the stark stupidity of attributing these motional futilities to a guiding mind."

"God-believers have assumed that because they see "order" in the universe, an intelligence must have "ordained" this "order," or "planned" things the way we see them. Our idea of "order" is necessarily derived from the existing conditions, whatever these happen to be; and no matter what arrangement might prevail, we would be sure to observe "order." It is in the nature of the case impossible for a thing, or even a group of things, not to bear relationship to all other things, and whatever relationship exists constitutes the "established order." No one can think of a thing which would not stand, in all of its parts, in "orderly" relationship to the whole. It is impossible to imagine a sequence of events which would not constitute "order" or which would not appear to us as "properly connected." If the sun revolved around the earth, instead of the earth around the sun, or if the earth were a disk spinning like a cart-wheel through space, instead of a globe rotating on its axis, we would recognize this as the "established order" of motion, even though it were the precise opposite of what we observe now. In brief, any combination of conditions or circumstances in which we might find ourselves would appear "orderly" to our perception, because it is the existing conditions which establish the "order.""

[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]
But that's exactly what you're doing. You're going to continue to believe in an actually infinite number of days, despite my showing of you that it's contradictory and the fact that there's absolutely no evidence for it...merely because it eliminates the need for a Creator. You're going to hold onto your unbelief in hopes that one day, someone will be able to invent an explanation that fits your worldview.[/quote]

I am not inventing an explanation, I base my beliefs on the facts. I'm more like an agnostic/weak atheist on the infinite number of days, since there is no proof or disproof of it.

You're the one who keeps trying to keep your creator in the picture, despite having to "push him backwards and backwards" as we find out more and more about the beginnings.

If we found out more about what happened before the big bang, and it was not a god that started it, most theists would still probably "push god back in time" and say that he started what-happened-before-the-big-bang, trying to keep him in the picture.

[quote]Beginning of the universe: Just because there is no answer does not mean that you can say "god did it".[/quote]
But it sure does logically follow. Since materials have not existed for all eternity, then the cause must be self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial. It must be incredibly powerful in order to create the universe out of nothing. It must be personal, because it must have chosen to begin the universe at some point, and impersonal causes don't make choices. (Geisler, Norm and Turek, Frank. [u]I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist[/u]. 93.)

That sure sounds like God to me.[/quote]

Back that up with some scientific articles! I showed you a scientific article and all you said was "Meh". You know why? Because science deals with the facts, and you can't go against facts.

[quote][quote]Extreme finetuning of the universe: Then how do you explain your far more complicated god who is probably more complex than the universe?[/quote]
Wrong again. In theological terms, God is [b]simple[/b], meaning he is not made up of parts.[/quote]

You're telling me that a simple god designed a complex universe more complicated than he is?

[quote][quote]Objective moral values: I can give you an article

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[/quote]
There are quite many things wrong with this idea.

1) This is coming from the same people who are materialists, and therefore don't believe anything outside of the material world. But, of course, morals aren't material. They cannot be physically measured in any way, and therefore can't be measured by natural selection.[/quote]

Back that up with a peer-reviewed article or scientific article!

[quote]2) If this theory is true, then Hitler really has no moral responsibility for killing 6 million people. He actually just has a couple bad molecules in his system. This is, of course, absolute nonsense, and I'm sure you would agree.[/quote]

Hitler involuntarily took away the lives of 6 million people, taking away their future without their consent. People have a right to their future and he took it away. That's what is wrong, according to my worldview.

(Don't bring up "Who gave us these rights?" because I can also ask "If god gave us these rights, who gave him permission to do so?" If you want to know where rights come from, they are because we have control over other objects in a different realm.)

[quote]3) Morality itself cannot be an instinct, as this theory says. In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states:

[i]"Some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now, I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct - by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way...But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling you ought to hep whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and supress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between instincts...cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the noes on the keyboard."[/i] (Lewis, CS. [u]Mere Christianity[/u]. pg 9-10)[/quote]

Again, show me what scientific evidence you have for this claim. CS Lewis was not a biologist or a scientist of any kind, so on what basis are you trusting him? He didn't have a degree in biology or psychology.

[quote]4) Hauser says that social morals have evolved because those cooperative morals help humans survive together. But this assumes an end - survival - for evolution, when Darwinism, by definition, has no end because it is a nonintelligent process. And even if survival is granted as the end, Darwinists cannot explain why people knowingly engage in self-destructive behavior, nor why people often subvert their own survival instincts to help others.[/quote]

Evolution is not about self-destructive behavior, you should read pyschology.

People have an instinct to help their fellow humans which evolved through evolution. A group that has helpful traits would survive better than a group that attacks each other. Get it?

[quote]5) You're confusing how one [i]knows[/i] the Moral Law with the [i]existence of[/i] the Law. Even if our genes and brains determine moral sentiments, that doesn't exclude that there is a moral law outside of ourselves.[/quote]

Another naked assertion, back it up.

[quote]6) Finally, you still can't explain [i]why[/i] you should follow your biological moral sentiments. Why shouldn't people murder, rape, and steal to get what they want in the world if there is no world after this?

(Geisler and Turek, 187-189)[/quote]

From [url=http://ministerturnsatheist.org/moralitywithoutgod.html]here[/url]:

"As an example of just how simple this morality issue is, let us ask the same questions (asked above) that god believers ask about atheist morality and apply the answers to animal morality. Why should these animals be moral (in their own ways) without a god? Because their society and their identification with it demands that they abide as "good citizens." The animals have no knowledge of even one god or goddess, but they morally conform in the framework of their worlds each and every day. Without god, what incentive is there for these animals to do right vs. wrong?
The incentive is acceptance by the fellow members of their group, and the purpose they find in doing what makes them useful units to their groups. Emotional creatures need the love and support of their fellow members of the pack. If they do "wrong" they are ostracized, if "right" they are praised--even though a different branch of the animal kingdom has a different set of moral standards. What is "right" and "wrong" to animals without god anyway? The terms "right" and "wrong" only have meaning according to the accepted ways of the given animal species. Regardless of the varying particulars of different cultures, the highlights of morals were made to keep social order and promote the progression of the species. If it could be conclusively shown that no god existed, this would not make stealing or cold-blooded murder one bit more acceptable to a society, and if it could be indisputably shown that a god did exist, this would not make conforming to principles of social order one bit more right."

[quote]Resurrection of Christ: Why don't you post your evidence on the Jesus Mythicist forum at the RRS, if you are so sure it's real? They are offering $666 if you succeed in doing so.[/quote]
Leave it to The "Rational" Response Squad to place a criteria on historical evidence that no historian uses, unless their Christ-mythers themselves. Sorry, but no historian demands contemporary records of someone for them to have actually existed, and there's more than enough evidence that Jesus did exist.[/quote]

What evidence?? You claimed there is evidence, I asked you to post it on the RRS forums, you simply repeated your statement over.

[quote]This is also a part of the same contest that left RRS with an embarassment and owing a whole lot of people money for providing people who have no contemporary evidence, but we accept.[/quote]

It should be nice to watch you respond on the Did Jesus Exist? thread that you started on here.

[quote][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.[/quote]
This is a category mistake. Belief in ghosts and the witch trials really aren't religious experiences, and they're certainly not what I'm talking about.

Unless you can give me some reason that my experiece of God is delusory, the fact of itself that someone claims to experience something counter to my claim doesn't make my claim untrue. Plus, you're starting with the assumption that all religious experiences are similar, and that's quite false if you've actually looked into the experiences of say, Hindus, in comparison to Christians.[/quote]

The experiences are different, but [i]that doesn't make one valid and other invalid[/i]. Why? Because both have the same amount of "evidence"!

[quote][quote]I'm just trying to point out that experiences do not count as evidence. No professional or scholar would see them as proof.[/quote]
William Lane Craig, a scholar and a professional, certainly does. His fifth argument in most debates is the ability to experience God.[/quote]

Craig is an apologist. Of course apologists rely on warm and fuzzy feelings instead of hard and cold evidence.

[quote][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]
[b]NO.[/b] Strawmen, strawmen. I addressed this in the suicide topic:

"I am NOT saying that atheists can't live life as if there is a purpose. That is completely untrue, and that point actually furthers my argument. What I am saying is that if atheism is true, there is no ultimate purpose or significance to your life. You can live life as if there is one, as if you are a valuable example of life. Ultimately however there is not, and you aren't valuable, and you are merely decieving yourself."[/quote]

You're getting completely confused between atheism and nihilism. Read some more about nihilism before you make unfounded assumptions that they are the same.

[url=http://www.nodogs.org/nihilism.html]Nihilism[/url]. A lot of nihilists tend to be atheist, but most atheists are not nihilists.

[quote][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.[/quote]
Why do you think it matters to your family and friends? Why do you think that they believe your life is valuable if it really isn't?[/quote]

Why does YOUR life matter to your family and friends?

As for me, everyday I interact with family and friends. Like, if I make them happy, my life means more to them.

[quote][quote]You don't understand the difference between living for a great big purpose and living for the goals you make for yourself everyday.[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point again. You feel a desire to make a purpose for yourself. But again, your life is [b]pointless[/b] as a cosmic accident, and you refuse to live life that way.

Simply put, you can't be happy and be a real atheist at the same time.[/quote]

Again, BULL! Atheism is NOT nihilism or any other philosophy like that!

I actually feel quite sorry for you, as you just cannot imagine living a happy life without your skydaddy. You cannot enjoy a beautiful scene without your god? You cannot enjoy art fully without your skydaddy? If yes, then your life has no purpose except for your skydaddy.

From [url=http://ministerturnsatheist.org/atheistqanda.html]here[/url]:

"Atheists have purpose, the purposes they make for themselves. The things that keep you going are the goals that you make for yourself, the desire to make the world a better place as you see fit, to promote what you feel should be promoted and accepted. Atheists have the same desire to carve out their own niche as do people of other beliefs. You can use your own talents and abilities to make life better or worse for your fellow man, or you can choose not to participate at all (a.k.a. die). It is up to the individual to determine their purpose. So much of our desire to live out a rich and full life is predetermined by evolution. We have been taught to survive, to thrive, if possible. We can override this instinct if we choose and take our own lives, but most of us take the time to enjoy life as it is set before us. It behooves us to make something of ourselves. Our large brains can scarcely resist the temptation to explore our world. Our curiosity and the desire to seek out contentment and pleasure tend to keep us here for a while. There is nothing wrong with this. Why not drive the car until it breaks? Yes, my desire for ultimate contentment in the grave is appealing. Someday, it will become a treasured reality, but I find that too easy just yet. When my life ceases to have value to me, when my quest for exploratory answers has reached it's end, when my days are filled no longer with happiness, but with overwhelming sorrow and pain instead, then I will take my leave of this world. When a life loses value to itself, that life should end."

[quote][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]
How did it become to be "instilled" in all of us? Are we born with it, as you say that we are with morality? We can't be, because reason isn't something that is material.[/quote]

Through evolution. The animals that had instinctial traits for reason survived better through natural selection.

Oh, and as a side note, when you question reason, you have to first accept that reason is axiomatic, then only you can question it itself. Because when you question something, you are using reason to question it. If you ask, where did reason come from? you are using reason itself to ask your question.

[quote]Certainly you've seen by now the problems with saying that objective morality evolved by evolution. The problems are similar with saying reason evolved by evolution.[/quote]

Certainly by now you've seen how unfounded your assertions are.

[quote][quote]Please. Look up the meaning of common sense before you actually start making assumptions about it.[/quote]
Same deal. How did this sense come into our knowledge?[/quote]

You're dodging the point completely and changing the subject. And again, evolution by natural selection. The animals that had "gentler" tendencies were better equipped to survive and the more savage ones didn't. It's pretty simple really.

[quote][quote]Faith is a belief without proof. Go ahead, show me how atheism assumes anything. It does not, it is the lack of belief.[/quote]
Not Biblical faith, as the Greek word [i]pistis[/i] shows. Biblical faith is trust based on prior performance. What you're doing is taking the English definition of a Greek word and basing your idea around that. It's one of the same crippling mistakes Rook used.[/quote]

If this faith is "experience", then why not call it experience or even knowledge?

There are two main forms of biblical faith:

1. "faith in the general goodness of god" like in Job's case, which begs the question that there is a god.

2. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1."

"Hoped for" - a hope, without evidence, basically an unjustified belief.

Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)

Paul is saying that one cannot have noncontingent faith if there are facts. If one has a reason to believe, he cannot have theistic faith, by definition.

[quote]By the way, atheism assumes that:

1) Science is the gateway to truth.
2) Reason is the gateway to truth.
3) Carl Sagan says, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." That's an assumption.

Do you need me to go on?[/quote]

Even you yourself said that atheism is a negative position. Then show me how the fuck a negative position assumes anything! A negative position cannot assume anything because there is nothing to assume in the first place!

Not all atheists necessarily agree with Sagan, either. Personally I am sort of agnostic over Sagan's quote.

[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]
Yeah, you heard me. There is absolutely no evidence that there have been an infinite amount of Bangs before our most recent one.

Are you telling me that virtually every astrophysicist that has ever lived has supported the idea that the universe never had a beginning, but is fluctuating back and forth from universe to singularity to universe to singularity on and on for an infinite amount of time? I really, really doubt that given the problems with this idea.

For one, there isn't enough matter in the universe for it to collapse back onto itself. Charles Bennett of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center confirmed this, saying "The universe will expand forever. It will not turn back on itslef and collapse in a great crunch." Astronomers are discovering that the speed of our universe's expansion is rapidly excellerating, prohibiting this possibility even further.[/quote]

Also, this idea completely contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It assumes, completely falsely, that no energy would be lost in this process. Simply, if the universe had been expanding and contracting forever, then it would have already fizzled out by now.

(Geisler and Turek, 86)[/quote]

First of all, as pointed out I messed up on the cyclic universe, sorry. But anyway, there are two main models as to the fate of the universe:

The Big Crunch - in which the current universe as we know it collapses on itself.

Forever expansion - in which it will continue to expand forever.

[quote]Thank you also.[/quote]
You are welcome. This is fun.

[/quote]

Yep.

[quote]P-Dunn said:
By the way, when will you decide to address my argument against an actual infinity?[/quote]

My apologies, I missed that one in my last post.

What about your god? Your god is supposed to have "always been there" which is pretty much an assumption. If god exists outside of time, he essentially had [i]no time to create time![/i]

As far as my position goes, I don't know. But I'm not jumping to any conclusions - whether that a god created it or that a god [i]could not[/i] create it.

[quote=P-Dunn]What makes an open theist suddenly more like people who think organized religion is crap?[/quote]

I have a question for you now P-Dunn. Where did he once stat other people and that open theist should agree with them?
He was clearly stating the fact that most open theist's agree that organized religion is a load of crap.
Also, here is a question. What proof do you have that ALL, not some, of the stories in the bible were true. Yet the Old Testament was not written until seventy years AFTER Jesus' death. Also, where are the bones of Jesus? Did they go to Heaven? Yet our bones stay in the ground. Why is that so? Also, how are we for sure that Jesus is the Messiah, which is part of the Holy Trinity, which is in fact, God. How do we know he is a man. Also, why is Jesus portrayed as a white man, yet he was born in the Middle East?

Also, how is that Noah could be 600 years old, as stated in the Bible? When it is humanely impossible for a human to live past 150 years old, without advanced medical technology?
Also, the flood that Noah built the Ark for, was around 2400 B.C. around the same time the Egyptians were building the pyramids, yet, Noah only took a man and a women and two of each animal on the Ark, how is it possible for the Egyptians to complete the pyramids, yet they all died in a flood.

Also, back to the man and women on the ark. How could they repopulate and entire world in less than 6000 years?
It is impossible, also, we would all entirely be from the same family causing genetic mutations.

Historical records from such ancient civilizations as the Chinese or the inhabitants of the Indus Valley show no period of time where these civilizations were suddenly wiped out by a global flood, to be slowly repopulated later. There is simply no evidence whatever, from archeology, geology or history, which indicate a worldwide flood that wiped out all but eight people.

Also, Noah's Ark was built to un-proportional sizes, that could not have lasted in open waters for such a long period of time.

Apparently, the creationists would have us believe that 600-year old Noah managed to construct a wooden ship 150 feet longer than the largest one ever built, and managed to solve, by himself, all of the design, construction and materials problems that the world's largest navies could not deal with 4,000 years later. Then after the Flood, Noah apparently forgot how he had solved these problems--no ship of similar size would be built for another 40 centuries.

Also, you might want to look into the figure of Jesus Christ himself, because Christians have portrayed him wrongly.

"Jesus was a stocky swarthy, clean shaven man."
- Britain's University of Manchester

The "Burning Bush" was in fact caused by natural gas seeping from the Earth.

Could you please explain these, and how Noah and other Prophets from The Bible lived to be 200+ years?

Normally I avoid these kind of discussions because it is impossible to debate god's existence from his qualities when you aren't 100 percent certain what they are (and the understanding of those properties will change depending on the arguments against them).

For example, Earlier in this debate it was said that the IPU can't exist because it's qualities (reflecting pink light and being invisible) are contradictory. A IPUist however, could argue that its invisibility simply refers to human perception, and that while it is colored pink, we can't perceive her glory.
(this same method can be used for any god..)

Also, just for fun, is any action that I can do that god can't?

When one thinks about the universe in terms of our mind one has to ask why can we think when our minds are supposebly only waves of DNA and such and why do we also have moral convictions. Us humans are a moral race no one can deny that if a girl had her arms chopped off that we wouldn't care, so where did this conviction come from. If you say that evolution of species brought us where we are or that that is what are ancestors saw that worked that would only explain how we feel about the girl getting her arm cut off. Some cultures feel that eating they're relatives feels okay so what really determines on how we say its wrong or not? The only way to explain how we judge right or wrong on not how we feel, but on an actual moral law is that there was a being who created us with this moral law. No other way points to this. Also the fact that spontanious generation was disproved leaves the only other way for creation being possible, a God! Also we have sex drives so there is sex, we thirst so there is water, we desire a meaning to life so therefore.... No im not talking about relationships or other temporary meaning but an actually fufilling meaning. If we are created with a longing for meaning saying that there is no God is denying that there is a meaning.(look it up before you question me on this). If there is no meaning than why are we created with a "soul" (or whatever call it what you want) that longs for this meaning? If life is really as sick as athiesm wants us to belief than we are beings with a need for meaning with no meaning,. So in other words we are rattinal moral beings with a need for meaning and nature is irrational and created a being which is completely out of sync with itself. If you say we are chance chemical reactions ever be free? No we are rational we hav imaginations and since an effect can never be greater than the cause and we are moral, rational, and can create things that leads to the cause being a being who is more rational more moral, and more capable of building things. If you say how can this being be perfect than what if we aren't morally or rationally perfect (admit it none of us are) than what are we compaaring our imperfection too? Athiesm is the most bankrupt system in that it states we are chemical reactions by pure chance. So if therefore we our thoughts are chemical reactions than any thought or imput we have does not matter more than say, a burp. So by stating your an athiest you have to admit that life means nothing, my opinion means nothing, and killing your mom would not be wrong but you would not feel its okay and could only be concidered wrong if there was a moral law which points to a God. So in otherwords, nihilsm! Kill everybody! Jk. Email me with debates I am a rational, normal, freethinker who also happens to be a Christian and knows where hes going after he dies, do you?

Also please don't rule out the supernatural because you infer it to "ghosts". Picture this, the whole human race, our existance, and everything in this world is completely amazing if you think about it. Saying this world is one dimensional (in that there is nothing else here but matter) is silly and takes a huge amount of blind faith. Before the developement of microscopes do you think people would have ever known if there was microscopic creatures? No you would have said that according to the laws of the scientific theory, that its irrational. Or maybe you wouldn't because if you looked at digestive system you would probally deem that there is more there than just the things you could see as you could see evidence of something that isn't there. Same with GOD!!!! There is so much evidence for there being a God, just look at how our world is put together, Christian revivals, and evil in the world which represents an opposite of an all loving God. have you guys ever been outside and just looked at a tree lately! (lol) Read my first post above this one for philisophical evidance though there is tons more than this. If you ask me nobodies actually an athiest, they're diests. (In that you don't believe in supernatural there is no way you can say that there isn't some higher power who planted it all here. The most rational minds (Eistein) believed this view of diesm. Look at what a nobel prize winning scientist has to say on evolution and the world without God, When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay.

[quote=timbobwaay]I am a rational, normal, freethinker who also happens to be a Christian and knows where hes going after he dies, do you?[/quote]

I just love this sentence. I'm not going to bother w/ a rebuttal now I guess, nice job American Atheist

[quote=timbobwaay]Also please don't rule out the supernatural because you infer it to "ghosts".[/quote]

Yes, I don't believe in ghosts.

[quote]Picture this, the whole human race, our existance, and everything in this world is completely amazing if you think about it. Saying this world is one dimensional (in that there is nothing else here but matter) is silly and takes a huge amount of blind faith.[/quote]

Ok...

[quote]Before the developement of microscopes do you think people would have ever known if there was microscopic creatures?[/quote]

Actually, that just shows how smart humans are.

Or are you saying that god told us that there were microscopic creatures?

If so, how did he tell us about their location?

And did he tell us why we should even bother looking at these microscopic creatures and studying them?

That's why we have gone so far, we investigate everything, we explore, we make a lot of discoveries. We make ourselves smarter and better.

We don't need god for that stuff.

[quote]No you would have said that according to the laws of the scientific theory, that its irrational.[/quote]

What is irrational? The laws of the scientific theory or that there's an invisible man in the sky?

[quote]Or maybe you wouldn't because if you looked at digestive system you would probally deem that there is more there than just the things you could see as you could see evidence of something that isn't there. Same with GOD!!!![/quote]

Which god?

[quote]There is so much evidence for there being a God, just look at how our world is put together,[/quote]

[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html]Not[/url] as[url=http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm] good as you think.[/url]

[quote]Christian revivals, and evil in the world which represents an opposite of an all loving God.[/quote]

All-loving?!

A god that would send anyone to Hell is all-loving?

What if you went to heaven and someone you love is burning in Hell?

Do you think that God is in hell? If so, how does he deal with the screaming from his burning creation?

If he doesn't do anything about it, how is he all-loving?

[quote]have you guys ever been outside and just looked at a tree lately! (lol) [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Read my first post above this one for philisophical evidance though there is tons more than this.[/quote]

"Evidence"? If so, read my above post with the links.

[quote]If you ask me nobodies actually an athiest, they're diests.[/quote]

Not this again...

[quote](In that you don't believe in supernatural there is no way you can say that there isn't some higher power who planted it all here.[/quote]

Nope, we're atheists, not deists. And we don't believe in god or any higher power.

If we were deists, why are you wasting your time trying to tell us about your God's existence?

[quote]The most rational minds (Eistein) believed this view of diesm. Look at what a nobel prize winning scientist has to say on evolution and the world without God, When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay. [/quote]

Can you give me a link?

Spontaneous generation disproved?

Read...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

To Christfolyfe and probably several others as well:

Wow. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
First of all, you can't even construct sentences properly, you Jesus Freak. I've gone to a private Catholic School system my entire life. I was baptized, went through First Holy Communion, Confirmation, etc.

Of course I stopped believing in 'GOD' when I was seven. I outgrew it--like the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Santa Claus.

And to your comment about not being able to see Mars.
HA! Have you ever heard of a telescope?
You can definitely see it through one in August. Dumbass.

As far as the creation of the world... perhaps it is beyond human comprehension. It's possible that the reason the early people, if you will, invented 'God', was to settle their own doubts and insecurities.

"Oh, an earthquake came, it must be GOD punishing us!"
"Oh, I prayed for rain and it came, it must be a miracle!"

Bullshit. Idiots.
The concept of God only served them, in the end. People wanted to know where life came from. So they sat down one day, and then the next, and over hundreds of years and created the Bible.
Most of the Bible is fictional. A bunch of fairy-tales that have symbolic meaning. Adam and Eve/Creation are equivalent to the common favorites of Cinderalla or Snow White.

Maybe some superior diety exists. Maybe it's dead now. But whatever might have created life is not the 'God' you all know and love.
It has his powers, perhaps. But other than that, it is most definitely not the God described in the 'Bible'.

Also.

Religion is a very suspicious thing.

A lot of things are hidden from us. Conspiracies, if you will. People need to open their eyes to the corruption surrounding them.
Christianity, (mainly Catholicism) has its secrets and deceptions. In fact, it's often been associated with ancient paganism. The occult.
Our holidays are on the same days.
Hmm...

Anyways. I'm not some retard who stuides religion all day. I assure you, a 4.2 GPA unweighted does not classify me as an 'inferior' intellectual.

And I'm a fifteen-year old girl with her head on straight.

God isn't real.
No one can explain anything about the creation of the earth, so quit acting like you can.

Reality will slap you in the face.

of course you can't see or touch or hear god. so obviously he doesn't exist. i mean people say he does and wrote a book about it. but they lied why would they want to make up somthing like this. but then again.....

if i put you in a room full of nitrogen, you can't see it, touch it, smell it. so obviously... ITS NOT THERE. so light up a fag, the room won't go kaboom.

Nice post InuMarosan22. Welcome to Freethinking Teens.

Noor,

[quote]Who created this limit in your theology?

If god created this limit himself, then it pretty much falls flat.

If it was not god, then god isn't superior anymore, is he?[/quote]
There was no creation of this limit. It has always been around. Impossible things have [i]always[/i] been impossible, unless you want to show me that it was once possible to make 2+2=5.

It doesn’t take a mind equivalent to God to recognize that something is inconsistent with his nature. The Bible, for one, says that God can’t lie. Why? Because he can’t contradict his perfect nature by doing something imperfect. Perfect things can’t be imperfect. God can’t answer two contradicting prayers at once. Why? Because it’s impossible for, say, the Colts [i]and[/i] the Bears to win the Super Bowl. It simply cannot happen.

[quote]If you say that "logic is part of god's nature" then:
1. Ontological error: something beyond nature cannot have a nature.[/quote]
Firstly, this is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation. You’re using “nature” twice in the same sentence with different meanings, but implying that you mean the same when you do. That’s logically fallacious.

Secondly, that doesn’t follow at all. All you’re doing is giving me an assertion without any evidence on your part. I’ve asked you to do this before…Why should I believe you when you say that something outside of “nature” can’t have a “nature” or that something outside of the universe can’t act within it, or whatever sort of nonsense you’re putting forth? You can’t merely state it and give no reasons for me to think it logically follows.

[quote]2. Epistemological blunder: logic refers to arguments, to symbols, not referents[/quote]
That’s very interesting, noor. Straight from todangst.

Logic only refers to arguments and symbols…So I guess the Law of Non-Contradiction is merely an argument, or a symbol? You must disagree with it, since you believe it’s possible to be outside of logic, or to make 2+2=5…God could do it, so it must be possible, right? Is the Law of Non-Contradiction a “bad argument” then?

[quote]3. Logical - to say that it is 'part of god's nature' does nothing to solve the problem, it still remains: can 'god' change his 'nature'?
If yes, then return to problem 1 above.
If no, return to problem number 2 above.[/quote]
And the answer is no, because God’s nature is perfect and to change it would make it imperfect, and thus he would cease to be God.

Get it?

[quote]Oh, and also if god's omnipotence is limited to only things that are logically possible, then you're placing him inside the realm of logic. But god is supposed to be outside/beyond logic.[/quote]
According to who, exactly? How did you come to this conclusion? This goes against the majority of opinion of theistic philosophers over the years. The only exception I can think of is Descartes, actually.

[quote] If he is beyond logic, he can do things that are beyond logic too. If you start saying that he is inside logic, then he isn't superior anymore.
Get it?[/quote]
First, you’d have to demonstrate that it’s [i]possible[/i] to be “beyond logic.” I don’t think it is, because that’s simply the way it is. For you to claim that God is supposed to be beyond logic, you must demonstrate how that’s a reasonable statement that even needs a response. You must demonstrate how violating the Law of Non-Contradiction and still being correct is totally possible.

God is still superior even if he can’t do something that cannot be done. It doesn’t make you

And to think, theists are told [i]they[/i] believe ridiculous things.

The argument can be made that God [i]is[/i] Logic. Read:
[quote] These are the attributes of Logic:

It determines what the facts will be. It maintains that each fact in reality must be consistent with every other fact in reality; nothing that exists can prove that anything else that exists in fact does not exist. Therefore, the present must be consistent with the past in that everything that exists today has developed in a logical order from its constituents that have existed in the past. And likewise, the future is predestined to develop from the facts in the present. So in the sense that Logic determines what all the facts in reality will be, Logic is All powerful.
And if in theory all the facts can be deduced from those in the present, then Logic knows all things.
The rules of logical consistency exist at any and all points in reality whether it be here or the farthest galaxy simply because Reality is defined as the complete set of all consistent facts that can be derived from logical principles. So Logic in this sense is Omnipresent.
And of course, the rules of logical consistency will remain the same for all time. For we know that the facts in the future must be consistent with the facts of the past. So in this sense Logic is Eternal.

So, I reason that if two concepts share ALL the same attributes, then they are the same thing. The burden on those who object is now to show that there are attributes that one has but not the other. I can't think of any.
Thus, I say that God is Logic. What else could He be - some being who is constructed of more fundamental parts - some intellect that has developed over a vast period of time? These cannot claim to have always been Eternal, nor Omnipresent, nor All powerful, nor all knowing, which are required attributes for a claim of being "GOD".[/quote]
So in summary:

Your premise that God is “supposed to be outside of logic” is unfounded, not supported by most theistic philosophers, and is merely an assertion.
Nothing can be “outside” of logic, not even God.
The case can be made that God is logic.

[quote] Other theists will say their view also has biblical support. You can debate with another christian theist who disagrees with you and they will also claim their view has more biblical support.[/quote]
I’m sure they will. Good for them. I could point out that the scientific community doesn't agree on everything either. But that would be giving you a red herring. Do you care to actually debate this with me or will you cop out again?

[quote] *rolls eyes*
See what I wrote above about the omnipotence paradox, it would be nice to see it rebutted.[/quote]
Try me.

[quote] I don't assume anything, I base them on hard scientific facts. [/quote]
Uh huh. Tell me noor, what hard, scientific facts do you have that the universe came out of nothing for no reason? What [i]hard, scientific[/i] facts do you have that God doesn’t exist? Of course, you’ll come back with, “I don’t have to have facts that God doesn’t exist, I don’t have the burden of proof, blah blah blah.” But then, do you have anything more than an assumption?

If you say that on the basis that there’s a lack of sufficient evidence, you don’t believe God exists, then you’re making several assumptions in one:

That there would be [i]more[/i] evidence than there is now.
That lack of evidence is evidence of absence (which is fallacious)
That lack of evidence is a legitimate basis for not believing in God.
Plus, like most atheists, you start from the assumption that science and reason are the gateway to truth.

And thus, you assume much more than you think.

[quote] It took billions of years for the universe to come to the state it is today. Have you read something like A Brief History of Time or any book on cosmology?[/quote]
I never said it didn’t take billions of years, did I?

No, I haven’t read that. I assume you have, since you are asking me if I did. I know enough about it to know that it features a concept of “imaginary time,” which has no scientific evidence, much less hard scientific facts supporting it. Do you believe it? Why?

[quote] I'm not trying to get you into an offtopic discussion on that, I was trying to show you that life did not necessarily need a god to come about.[/quote]
Sure, you can explain it any way you like. You can explain the way a light bulb turns on by saying that a hundred little men in the bulb start running in place and then the light turns on because of the energy. But that won’t make it true. And for you to say that life somehow came from non-life for no reason on a planet that was created by chance through cosmic accidents that ultimately came about from nothing, by nothing, for no reason sounds exactly as reasonable as the light bulb story to me.

[quote] Oh, the old "unmoved mover" argument. What peer-reviewed article that claims an unmoved mover was needed to put them in motion, can you give me? From a scientific journal?[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know. Try anything written by the Journal of Creation.

[quote] Scientists have observed traces of water (or other liquids) on other planets, which could possibly signify a sign of life. Then you dodge the point and say that scientists are clueless as to how life came about on earth and they make up insane ideas, and I believe them too. I pointed out that I do not believe them until there is direct evidence, and also that they are basing the idea that life on earth came from other planets because of the traces of water.[/quote]
And yet, the theory still ends going in a circle. If we can’t explain life on our planet, how can we possibly explain the water and possible life on another planet? Did [i]that[/i] come from another planet?

[quote]We have created primitive signs of life in a lab, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[/quote]
And this life was created by intelligence or by chance? ;-)

[quote] Go ahead and show me a science article to back up your claims that a spirit created life. I would really, really love to read something like that. Nothing from an apologetics website though, a scientific website only.[/quote]
Well, if you don’t like the Journal of Creation, you can try the quarterly journal put out by the Creation Research Society.

[quote] Can you use math (which exists in an abstract world) to create a physical force? Why not?[/quote]
Stupid question. Math is not a sentient force, so no.

[quote] No, because lifting a box is not freefall. (if the box is light enough to hold in a person's hands) The basic laws of gravity state that objects are attracted to each other. There is a gravitational force, very tiny, between me and my desk, but the earth's gravity pulls us both with a much stronger force.
Back to the box, the box is still attracted to me by a very minimal force when I'm holding it. The reason why the earth's gravity does not pull the box down is because my hand is holding it. If I lift the box in an upward direction, my arms are exerting a force stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the box (as a side note, which can be calculated by the equation F=G((mass1 * mass2)/d^2) and G equals 6.67E-11 Nm^2/kg^2).[/quote]
You just said it yourself…You’re [i]overpowering[/i] the force of gravity. Thank you for proving my point.

[quote] If god picks the physical box up he would also have to apply a physical force stronger than the earth's gravitational force.[/quote]
Well, at least you didn’t say, “No he wouldn’t, because he doesn’t exist.”

[quote] Again, who/what determined this limit?[/quote]
No one. God’s nature has always been this way.

[quote] You say that god cannot do things that are logically impossible. You are fitting god into the realms of logic, when god is supposed to be beyond logic.
If god is beyond logic, then he can do things that are logically impossible.
Don't you get it?[/quote]
I get what you’re saying, but you still haven’t demonstrated that God is “supposed to be” beyond logic, which is 100% impossible.

[quote](And don't deny that god is beyond logic, you implied that logic/reasoning comes from god. Your god has to be beyond logic then.[/quote]
Why? I don’t see how that logically follows.

[quote] Again, the omnipotence issue. See above and rebutt my arguments first.[/quote]
Bull. If you’re first going to assert that God can do anything, even logically impossible things (and disagree with me) and then turn right around and assert that God [i]cannot[/i] do something (and agree with me) then you have a contradictory argument. You’re going to have to reconcile this before we continue.

Maybe you know that if you pick one side, you immediately lose. If you hold firm and say that God can do anything, even logically impossible things, then you admit that God can act within the universe, CAN want, CAN have a nature, etc. You lose several arguments, and you’re well on your way to losing the rest of the debate. But if you concede and say, “Yeah, there are some things God can’t do,” then you still don’t win the others. None of those things I mentioned violate God’s nature, and so fall within the realm of omnipotence. And therefore, you lose all the arguments.

So which is it, noor? Can God do anything, or are there things God can’t do?

[quote] No, I do not label things as good or evil in a religious sense of the word. "Evil" as in morality is an involuntary violation of rights, but that's for a separate topic.[/quote]
Let’s see…The “religious” sense of the word is not what I’m talking about. There are things that are wrong apart from a religious doctrine…Murder is wrong even if a religion were to say, “It’s fine.”

If you deny this, then you can never use the Argument from Evil with me. Sound good?

[quote] Where am I contradicting myself?
Do you now understand the omnipotence paradox?[/quote]
Right above you.

[quote] Of course I do. Do you?
I am not assuming they are fallacies at first glance, I study the premises and I realize there is a contradiction. How is that begging the question?[/quote]
So you’ve studied every aspect of God’s nature and determined that every one of them is a fallacy? Really?

[quote] All right, Hume's Dictum refers to physical vs. supernatural objects. Logic and math exist in an abstract world and Hume's Dictum lies in the field of logic which is abstract. Abstract things come from the human mind. Supernatural things are supposed to exist in the outside world. You're confusing supernatural/immaterial with abstract.[/quote]
Okay. We’ll do this your way. Let’s edit it with this in mind.

“Only physical [b]objects[/b] can be proven.”

And thus, Hume’s Dictum cannot be proven, since it is not a physical object. It’s still circular.

But let's ignore this for a second. Let's think about it another way. For the statement, "only physical objects can be proven" to be true, we have to have uniform experience against physical things being true. But we can only know that if all reports of the supernatural are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we already know that only physical things can be proven. This is undeniably circular.

Plus, it's merely an assertion which isn't substantiated.

[quote] So god wants true love from us? What for?[/quote]
Yes, He does. Because we were made to reflect His glory.

[quote] My personal view on morality is that wrong is when you violate my rights. Other people will have a different view though.[/quote]
So you don’t believe in objective morality?

[quote]And answer my question about why an infinitely good god would punish man for a finite sin. Infinite punishment for a finite sin is infinitely injust.[/quote]
Oh wait, you [i]do[/i] believe in objective morality?

Here is your dilemma, noor. If objective morality does exist, then the conclusion that God exists follows deductively. You assert to me that “Infinite punishment for a finite sin is infinitely injust.” You’re speaking as if there’s an actual standard for what is just that you can measure it by. That is called objective morality, which atheism as no reasonable explanation for. If you will deny that objective morality exists, then your point on infinite punishment is also moot, and I don’t have to accept anything you say about it.

So which is it?

[quote]I know you're going to start off all about how it's "only my opinion", but I'm using logic here. God is infinitely good, man is finitely evil. God's goodness should overcome man's finite sins for an infinite extent.[/quote]
It’s odd that you’re using logic when you claim that God is outside of logic and therefore it doesn’t apply to him. That sort of defeats this particular argument. But we’ll ignore that.

I’m saying that “It’s only your opinion” in a different way than I think you mean. If you don’t believe in objective morality, then it all comes down ultimately to personal preference.

[quote] Doesn't the bible say that people who have not accepted Jesus are going to hell?[/quote]
Sure. But no where does it say, “People who have never even heard of Jesus will go to Hell.” And that’s what I’m asking you to find for me. This is a common issue that atheists bring foreword which they have no Biblical basis for, at least to my knowledge.

[quote] I was NOT talking about Jesus being a hypocrite, you missed the point about Paul.[/quote]
And there was a linguistic difference here. The word Paul used in Galatians was [i]anoetos[/i]. In the other, [i]aphros[/i], not [i]moros[/i], which has a more of a connotation of “unbeliever” rather than “stupidity.” So this fails as well.

[quote] I'm not asking that you can use your holy babble to help me with my life problems or anything. I was asking you a simple question: if the bible is god's perfect word, why wouldn't it have the answer to why we were created for a comparatively short period of time?
You're dodging the question by simply stating that the babble is not a self-help book.[/quote]
“If the bible is god's perfect word, why wouldn't it have the answer to nuclear proliferation?”
“If the bible is god's perfect word, why wouldn't it have the answer to why AIDS is so prevalent?”

Because it’s not relevant. I don’t see why the Bible should mention this.

[quote] I'm showing you how irrational your religion is. Even if you believe hell is a state of separation, still that doesn't work. Whichever way, god came to save us from a hell (whether physical or not) that he himself created.[/quote]
If Hell is merely a state of separation, then [b]it wasn’t created.[/b] That should be obvious to you. *thumbs up*

[quote] I'm not talking about the afterlife. And besides, you admitted you can't prove the soul exists. First you answer my omnipotence questions and use logic to prove your god, then we'll talk about the soul.[/quote]
I know you’re not talking about the afterlife, but that point still renders your point useless. If God exists, then he’s letting unbelievers in him be successful. But if that same God still exists when the unsuccessful believers die, they will be rewarded beyond the wildest dreams of the unbelievers on Earth.

[quote] Even if you think the survey isn't reliable, you can look up the facts about nonreligious countries yourself and analyze them.[/quote]
I’ll pass, since it doesn’t pertain to which worldview is accurate.

[quote] Deludedgod's essay that sort of pertains
Most of the gods that existed before the xian god were also invisible, all-powerful, good, and all-knowing, for one.[/quote]
And this proves what?

[quote]Hindus believe that the Buddha (despite his atheism) was Vishnu come down to earth in the form of a human being. And that's not the only one, other pagan myths share similarities to the christian story. [/quote]
Sorry, noor. That’s a doctrine from the Bhagavata Purana, which wasn’t written until either the 9th or 10th century.

[quote]The apologist Justin Martyr admits a lot of this in Apologia I also (in an attempt to make it easier for pagans to convert to christianity):
"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.”[/quote]
See [url=http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm]here[/url].

[quote] The irony, a christian is talking to me about assumptions.[/quote]
Wah, wah, wah. I already showed you your assumptions. Stop complaining.

[quote] That's all you've got?
If you do believe in ghosts, then I might have to stop taking you seriously.
If you don't, why don't you believe in them since there is "evidence"?[/quote]
The irony, an atheist who complains about me talking about assumptions, and then makes one about me.

I don’t believe in ghosts because the evidence for ghosts is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence of a Creator. This is a stupid complaint, and a red herring.

[quote] If open theism is wrong, then more parts of god's nature would render him impossible. Like the "Can god change his future mind?" and "God knew that people are going to hell, yet he created them?" arguments would be valid if open theism is false.[/quote]
There are easy answers to both, since the first is a stupid, contradictory question and the second is an argument by outrage and appeal to emotion. But I’ll just link you to the responses, since I’m an open theist.

Future Mind = http://www.tektonics.org/guest/rockon.htm (I highly suggest you read this one all the way through, since it also refutes your omnipotence argument)
Hell = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html.

[quote]So essentially, according to your view, if open theism is false god would be impossible even according to you.[/quote]
False. I’ve been a Christian for a lot longer than I’ve been an open theist.

[quote] Go ahead and explain away my explanation of the omnipotence paradox, I'd like to see you deal with that.[/quote]
You’re so confident…
[quote]An omnipotent god is impossible. That's why I leave out his "omnipotence" when dealing with other aspects of his nature.[/quote]
Yet this isn’t another aspect of his nature. We’re still talking about something that pertains to omnipotence.

And plus, you’re still assuming two contradictory definitions of the same attribute. You still have to pick a side.

[quote] Prove it.[/quote]
Because, according to the Bible, God banished Satan from Heaven, so he cannot return.

If you’re going to play the annoying atheist game of asking for scientific proof for something like this over and over, you won’t get any.

[quote] Maybe it was because they had no clue as to how we came about? No idea about evolution or the big bang? William of Ockam lived from 1288 to 1348! Can you imagine how little about the natural sciences they knew back then, compared to the modern day?[/quote]
Ah, so I see that I’ve got a historical bigot on our hands. Yes, all the famous Christians of that era would have been atheists if they’d only known about evolution! Thanks for copping out.

[quote] When did I say it is a direct disproof against god?[/quote]
When you said: “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.”

[quote]And besides, all you've got for me is a form of argument from authority and an assumption (that I think it is a direct disproof of god.)[/quote]
It’s not an argument from authority. I was merely pointing out something that was ironic, not trying to convince you that Christianity was true because Occam believed in God.

[quote] Show me your evidence, it should be interesting. And you said, "may be" - so if there is evidence a soul might exist, then you are still partly assuming it.[/quote]
I can give you several arguments that materialism is false.

Human thoughts and theories are not materials. Chemicals play a part in humanity’s thought processes, but certainly they can’t account for all thoughts. Even the theory of materialism isn’t material. Thoughts are not chemicals, since you can’t measure how much “love” weighs or what the chemical composition of “hate” is. And since they are not completely materially based, materialism is false.
If materialism is true, then that would mean that every single spiritual experience that anyone in the entire world for all time has had was completely mistaken. They’ve all been completely wrong, even the great scientific minds and the most rational thinkers throughout history. This is possible, but it’s certainly unlikely, as if only [i]one[/i] spiritual experience is genuine, then materialism is false.
My argument about not being able to put together materials and make life still stands. Why can’t we do that? The conclusion logically follows that it’s because life is not merely material.
Materialism makes reason impossible. If the processes of the brain are only chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true. Chemicals can’t evaluate whether something is true, because they only react, not reason. (IDHEFFBAA, pg 128-129)

If materialism is false, then it’s logical to believe that there is something to life beyond merely the material…A soul, if you will.

[quote] You're using the bible to prove the soul now? And please, go ahead and deal with my questions about your god.[/quote]
No, stupid. I’m using the Bible to show that the Bible teaches that the soul exists. Read what I say before you post the cliché atheist one-liners.

[quote] Because the sperm/egg cells are dead when the overall body is dead. Don't you get it?[/quote]
What makes them dead, noor? I think you still don’t understand this simple point. If life is only made up of materials and nothing more, no soul or anything, then we should be able to put together materials and create life. We should be able to put the [i]same materials[/i] that make up a living being and make a living being out of it. Why can we not?

[quote] Oh, I knew you wouldn't have much to say on a scientific article.[/quote]
Yeah, one that doesn’t go towards your case. *thumbs up*

[quote]Science typically tends to take a somewhat agnostic/secular view on theology, so you can't claim that article is from a so-called "fundy atheist" site.
[/quote]
But according to the “Rational Responders,” all agnostics are really atheists in disguise! ;-)

[quote] Free will = The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Are you telling me that the brain chemical reactions are "external"??[/quote]

This is long, but if you want to understand my argument you need to read this segment of [url=http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/knowrequiresgod.htm]this website[/url]:
[quote] If human beings are nothing more than material "stuff," having no immaterial aspect to their being (i.e. a soul), we would be affected by the same deterministic cause and effect relationship that all other purely material things are affected by. In the same way water cannot decide to not boil, and dominos cannot decide to not fall, man could not decide to do or think anything other than what physical precursors have determined for us. Every one of our thoughts and acts would be mere reactions to prior events-some invisible domino falling on us if you will. These thoughts and acts would not simply follow the cause, but would necessarily follow, not able to be any other way. Free will deliberation and independent thought become impossible in a purely physical world.
Naturalists will be the first to agree with this assessment. They recognize that free will and philosophic naturalism do not mix. Naturalist thinker, John Searle, wrote, "Our conception of physical reality simply does not allow for radical freedom." He admitted that there is no hope of reconciling libertarian freedom with naturalism when he wrote, "In order for us to have radical freedom, it looks as if we would have to postulate that inside each of us was a self that was capable of interfering with the causal order of nature. That is, it looks as if we would have to contain some entity that was capable of making molecules swerve from their paths. I don't know if such a view is even intelligible, but it's certainly not consistent with what we know about how the world works from physics."
John Bishop candidly stated that "the idea of a responsible agent, with the 'originative' ability to initiate events in the natural world, does not sit easily with the idea of a natural organism…. Our scientific understanding of human behavior seems to be in tension with a presupposition of the ethical stance we adopt toward it."4
Again, Bishop writes that
[quote]the problem of natural agency is an ontological problem-a problem about whether the existence of actions can be admitted within a natural scientific perspective… Agent causal-relations do not belong to the ontology of the natural perspective. Naturalism does not essentially employ the concept of a causal relation whose first member is in the category of person or agent (or even…in the broader category of continuant or 'substance'). All natural causal relations have first members in the category of event or state of affairs.[/quote]
In other words, naturalism does not allow for free will agents to simply decide. There is no such thing as agent-causation; only event-causation. Event-causes work in a strictly deterministic cause and effect relationship, with no room for free will. According to naturalism human acts are better classified as "happenings," not "acts." "Acts" implies the involvement of a personal, willing agent. That concept is vacuous in a naturalistic worldview.
Cornell University professor, William Provine, admitted that "free will as it is traditionally conceived-the freedom to make uncoerced and unpredictable choices among alternative possible courses of action-simply does not exist…. There is no way that the evolutionary process as it is currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices."
If there is no free will no one is capable of choosing to believe something because of good reasons. He would only believe what he believes because he has been determined to do so by prior physical forces acting on him. Arguments would not matter; reasons would not matter; only prior physical events acting on one at that moment would matter. One person's belief in determinism/atheism is just as determined as another person's belief in free will/theism. We might experience an illusion of knowledge, but we could never know if what we think we know about the world is the way it truly is, or if it is merely the way we have been determined to believe it is by prior physical causes in our life. Genuine rationality requires freedom, and yet freedom is not possible in a purely material world. In a purely material world every one of our thoughts and beliefs are determined rather than being based on good reasons. That's why if there is no such thing as free will no one could know it! If no one could know it, it undermines the very rational foundation for such a belief.[/quote]
[quote]And besides, even in your case, in which the christian god gave us freewill instead of controlling us, aren't we still controlled by our chemical reactions?[/quote]
No, because if the Christian God created us then we have a soul that allows us to make decisions on our own.

[quote] You should also read other theists who don't believe in free will also.[/quote]
I have, and I find their argument wholly unconvincing. Now read Provine.

[quote] Many, but not all. There's a difference. Atheists generally accept evolution and the big bang, but there are exceptions.[/quote]
I never said [i]all[/i] of them. That’s the point! You made the generalization that “Atheism does not assume anything,” and then I pointed out that while some atheists don’t, some of them do as well. Strong atheism assumes a whole lot, actually.

[quote] Because the bible does not serve as proof for the christian god or soul. It's assuming the bible is true and written by god.[/quote]
You have a point. However, the Bible doesn’t have to be written by God to be true about God. I, for one, take a completely different view of inspiration that goes against the common atheist conception of it.

[quote] I think, therefore I exist. Thinking is consciousness, consciousness is reality, reality is existence. How can I think and not exist?[/quote]
Do you know for sure that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals being programmed to make it seem as though you are a human being? Can you prove that the world wasn’t created five minutes ago by a computer program with all of our thoughts and memories of our lives being created as well? Can you prove that any of those aren’t true using scientific evidence?

The answer, of course, is no. We call these beliefs properly basic. You can’t prove them.

[quote]Can you prove to me that you exist, too?[/quote]
No.

Though interestingly enough, according to Hume you shouldn’t believe in me. You’ve never experienced me except through this online debate. You’ve never seen me in person. For all you know, I could be a bot made by some theist who programmed me to make responses to you. So what evidence do you have that I exist?

[quote] Can you?[/quote]
Nope.

[quote]The external world does exist because I can sense it with my five basic senses.[/quote]
That’s certainly odd. If I were to say that I’ve experienced God with [i]any[/i] of my five basic senses, you wouldn’t believe me. But now you’re using your senses to prove something exists.

You also forget that your senses could easily be deceiving you. The external world could be a computer program like in the Matrix, and in that case it also wouldn’t really exist. Can you prove that it is not? Again, no. It’s a properly basic belief.

[quote] Yes.[/quote]
*snort*

Ladies and Gentlemen! May I now present the Incredible, Indubitable Noor! Watch as she completely ignores what I ask for and gives me something that actually supports my case! I had asked her for a documentation of “life [being] spontaneously generate[d] from nonlife without the aid of an intelligent force,” and instead, she gave me an example of an [b]intelligent force[/b] creating life from pre-existing materials! Brilliant! I don’t believe I’ve seen anything like it! After seeing this feat of intellect, one would wonder if she even read the article that she linked me to!

[quote]Now, about you: Can you prove that life was created by a spirit? Show me one scientific article about an immaterial spirit creating life!
If you can't, why believe it?[/quote]
Check those journals, Noor.

If I can’t directly prove that God created life, I would believe it because it’s reasonable, and it’s more plausible than the current theory of abiogenesis. This theory rests on practically nothing at all and is merely a scientific invention to make your worldview work.

[quote] Because your entire paragraphs about the supernatural are baseless assertions without any real evidence for them. Show me one scientific article that says anything supernatural is real.[/quote]
Right, just like your asking me to believe that the universe did not have a creator, which has no scientific evidence either. Just like you ask me to check out the concept of imaginary time in A Brief History of Time, which has no evidence supporting it either. Etc, etc…

Check those journals. I bet that when you finally read this post, you’ll say something like, “But creationists really aren’t scientists! Wahhhh!” and therefore completely dodge that your point is refuted.

[quote] Okay.
You said, "they would soon be returning back", are you saying that god knew in advance if they would be returning or not?[/quote]
Hehe. You’re getting desperate now.

[quote]If yes, then you've completely contradicted yourself since you say you are an open theist, since you say that god cannot know about the future.[/quote]
That’s not what I said. God cannot know the actions of a free being. God can know a whole lot “about” the future…He can decide to act within it at a certain time, which explains how prophecies occurred. He knows all possible counterfactuals of every given situation that happens. He can plan so that things occur in the way that he wants it to, etc. So it comes as no surprise that God would plan an NDE to occur and then make them wake up again “in their body.”

[quote]If no, then god didn't know who would be returning back to earth, and the people would forget their past on earth and not remember anything when they "return".[/quote]
How does the second part logically follow from, “God doesn’t know who will return back to earth?”

[quote] I said "probably". Aren't you even reading anything I say?
If you're asking me to prove the big bang, then check this out.[/quote]
I’m not asking you to prove the Big Bang, since I believe it. I’m no YEC. What I am asking you to prove is that the matter that existed at that point was eternal.

You said “probably?” How hypocritical of you. Remember when I said that there is evidence that there “may be” a soul that exists? And then you said that I was, “still partly assuming it.” But remember when you said, “I don't assume anything, I base them on hard scientific facts?” If that’s true, then where are your [i]hard scientific facts[/i] that the matter that existed at the Big Bang was “probably” eternal? You’re still partly assuming it, if there is no scientific evidence. And that means you were lying when you said you don’t make any assumptions.

[quote]The most basic evidence for the big bang is that the universe is continually expanding and at some point it must have been all together in a singularity. The Doppler effect, measuring the red shifts of galaxies, minerals in stars and galaxies, etc. all serve as proof of it. Please study cosmology.[/quote]
I believe you, once again. I’m [i]not[/i] a Young Earth Creationist nor a fundamentalist, before you label me there.

[quote] The law of thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed and we have never seen it broken. If this law is broken, then the entire matter-is-eternal law will likely change. That's how science works.[/quote]
But the [i]second[/i] law of thermodynamics says that the quality of matter and energy is constantly decreasing over time, and therefore, it’s impossible that there was an infinite amount of time before this moment. The energy in the universe would be gone by now. It also implies that the First Law only applies to current, natural circumstances and that at one point, matter must have come into existence.

[quote]Can you scientifically prove to me that matter was created by a spirit?[/quote]
Probably not. But then again, I’m not the one that says, “You must be able to scientifically prove everything to believe it.” I’m also not turning around making the assumption that the universe is eternal without any scientific proof and most likely believing in things like imaginary time and abiogenesis.

[quote] Ontological error: if god is outside of time, he cannot have time. He had no time to create time.[/quote]
[i]EXACTLY.[/i] There was no point where God was sitting around being bored with nothing. That’s exactly what “timeless” means…Without time.

[quote] From here:[/quote]
Hahahaha…Great. As if the concept of the fine-tuning of the universe hasn’t advanced at all since [b]1938.[/b] What were you thinking, noor? That’s almost eighty years ago, and the theory of the fine-tuning of the universe is a much more recent discovery with much scientific evidence that’s been discovered within the last forty or fifty years to back it up.

[quote] I am not inventing an explanation, I base my beliefs on the facts.[/quote]
Uh huh…

[quote]I'm more like an agnostic/weak atheist on the infinite number of days, since there is no proof or disproof of it.[/quote]
And yet, you used it to argue against my point. You don’t have any proof, so why do you even use it?

[quote]You're the one who keeps trying to keep your creator in the picture, despite having to "push him backwards and backwards" as we find out more and more about the beginnings.
If we found out more about what happened before the big bang, and it was not a god that started it, most theists would still probably "push god back in time" and say that he started what-happened-before-the-big-bang, trying to keep him in the picture.[/quote]
More fluff and wishful thinking.

[quote] Back that up with some scientific articles! I showed you a scientific article and all you said was "Meh". You know why? Because science deals with the facts, and you can't go against facts.[/quote]
I said “Meh” because I’d already offered my response earlier and showed that it didn’t go towards your case.

That’s also quite a stupid statement you just made. If science deals with “the facts,” then why do you assume so much without facts to be true when you’re in this debate? Why do so many scientists over the years and now believe in God despite “the facts” that God apparently doesn’t exist?

[quote] You're telling me that a simple god designed a complex universe more complicated than he is?[/quote]
In the theological sense of the word “simple,” yes. Simple things are not made up of parts, and complex things are material. So if God were to create something material, it would be “complex.”

[quote]Back that up with a peer-reviewed article or scientific article![/quote]
This is incredible. First, you cite an article from a [i]newspaper[/i] as if it refutes my point about objective morality. To make matters worse, it doesn’t show anything conclusive, but merely suggests that it’s a possibility. And then you expect me to cite a peer-reviewed or scientific article to refute your argument. Double-standard much?

Secondly, you didn’t even address my argument. Do you deny that moral judgments are immaterial? How about aesthetic judgments? Are they material? You didn’t even attempt to respond.

Thirdly, if I can’t back them up with a peer-reviewed article, does that make my opinion incorrect in your mind?
[quote] Hitler involuntarily took away the lives of 6 million people, taking away their future without their consent. People have a right to their future and he took it away. That's what is wrong, according to my worldview.[/quote]
Wait, involuntarily? He didn’t really mean to kill 6 million people, he just did it by accident? Or are you insinuating what I’ve been trying to tell you the whole time and saying that we as humans (in atheism) are controlled by our chemicals and nothing more, and therefore have no free will?

Why is taking away rights “wrong?” On what basis do you decide what is right or wrong?
[quote](Don't bring up "Who gave us these rights?" because I can also ask "If god gave us these rights, who gave him permission to do so?"[/quote]
Nobody. There was never a time where he didn’t possess these rights. He has the right to give us rights because he created us, is the sole creator of the universe, and has no one in authority over him.

So where did these “rights” come from?

[quote]If you want to know where rights come from, they are because we have control over other objects in a different realm.)[/quote]
What do you mean here, exactly?
[quote] Evolution is not about self-destructive behavior, you should read pyschology.[/quote]
I think you once again misunderstood what I said. If only the traits that help people survive, as you say below, then why do people:
1) Kill themselves,
2) Do and sell drugs, knowing the negative effects
3) Run away instead of helping people
…Etc?
[quote]People have an instinct to help their fellow humans which evolved through evolution. A group that has helpful traits would survive better than a group that attacks each other. Get it?[/quote]
Really? So people who risk their lives by running into burning buildings to save children, or in other ways put their lives on the line for other people, are actually [i]surviving better[/i] than people that runs away and use their instinct of self preservation? Is that what you’re telling me?
You also still haven’t answered my point (or rather, C.S. Lewis’s) about the force that tells us to use our instinct to help rather than our instinct to preserve ourselves. We have competing instincts, and this other force can’t itself be an instinct. So why don’t you actually answer the argument, rather than hiding behind your hypocritical requests for peer review?
You seem to be setting up a dichotomy as well. Either they help each other or they attack each other. This is not the case, however. Groups could live by their “survival of the fittest” and merely ignore each other, working for themselves only (or in pairs, perhaps) and yet not interfering with others. Why is this not as valuable?
[quote]Another naked assertion, back it up.[/quote]
I’d argue that the uniformity of morality in all cultures all over the world at all times points to the existence of the moral law being outside of ourselves. For example, can you point me to a culture that regards lying and deceiving as morally good? Can you point me to a culture where rape of a six year old girl is considered a morally praiseworthy thing? Can you show me a culture where self sacrifice and love are [i]bad[/i], and hate is good?
[quote] "As an example of just how simple this morality issue is, let us ask the same questions (asked above) that god believers ask about atheist morality and apply the answers to animal morality.[/quote]
Good job, Joe. Way to shift the question completely.
[quote]Why should these animals be moral (in their own ways) without a god? Because their society and their identification with it demands that they abide as "good citizens."[/quote]
Define “good citizen” and explain your standard.

[quote]The animals have no knowledge of even one god or goddess,[/quote]
Really? How does Joe know this?
[quote]but they morally conform in the framework of their worlds each and every day. Without god, what incentive is there for these animals to do right vs. wrong?

The incentive is acceptance by the fellow members of their group, and the purpose they find in doing what makes them useful units to their groups. Emotional creatures need the love and support of their fellow members of the pack. If they do "wrong" they are ostracized, if "right" they are praised--even though a different branch of the animal kingdom has a different set of moral standards. What is "right" and "wrong" to animals without god anyway? The terms "right" and "wrong" only have meaning according to the accepted ways of the given animal species. Regardless of the varying particulars of different cultures, the highlights of morals were made to keep social order and promote the progression of the species. [/quote]
Okay, so morality is subjective according to Joe Holman. But he’s setting himself for a massive contradiction.
I’m sure that you’ve read his essay called Bible Atrocities, as you seem to be a fan of his webpage. Notice how he appeals to your emotions by saying things are “horrible.” He says, “If ever their was a barbaric individual, it was king David! He made sure he tortured everyone he hated with saws, shackles, axes, burning kilns, and who knows what else?” But if morality is subjective, and good and bad are “relative terms except to the species or group that embraces said principles,” then he has no right to say such a thing. If morality is as he says it is, then “Torture is wrong” is merely our society’s personal opinion, but not actually [i]wrong[/i]. If he stopped being a minister because of reasons like this, then he really doesn’t have any hope.

Sorry, but Joe Holman can’t have his cake and eat it too. Neither can you.
[quote]If it could be conclusively shown that no god existed, this would not make stealing or cold-blooded murder one bit more acceptable to a society,[/quote]
What makes “cold-blooded” murder wrong and, say, “murder in self defense” right? There is still someone dying, which is not really good for society. In both cases, one survives and one dies. The manner is different, but why is one wrong and one right?
[quote]and if it could be indisputably shown that a god did exist, this would not make conforming to principles of social order one bit more right."[/quote]
Now [i]that[/i] is pure nonsense. If God exists, and is the moral standard, than doing things by the moral standard that is God would be objectively right, and wouldn’t be based on opinion. He assumes subjective morality in an objective sense, which doesn’t make sense.

I really don’t understand the basis for him saying that. It makes absolutely no sense. It’s like he’s assuming naturalism [i]and[/i] talking about God at the same time, but doesn’t realize the incredible contradiction.
[quote] What evidence?? You claimed there is evidence, I asked you to post it on the RRS forums, you simply repeated your statement over.[/quote]
I’d say that the evidence from the four accounts of the Bible, historians like Josephus (minus the disputed passages), and especially the secular accounts of people like Tacitus provide enough evidence for Jesus existing as a person. Plus, I’d point out that the Gospels were written way too early for legendary development to occur.

So I’ll just wait for you to accuse the Tacitus passage of being a forgery, and saying that the accounts of the Bible can’t be used as evidence because they have miracles in them, or some other arbitrary standard that you pulled out of your rear.
[quote] It should be nice to watch you respond on the Did Jesus Exist? thread that you started on here.[/quote]
What, has American Atheist actually taken up my challenge? Has Rook come back after almost a month, if I’m not mistaken?

[quote] The experiences are different, but that doesn't make one valid and other invalid. Why? Because both have the same amount of "evidence"![/quote]
Care to show me that?

[quote] Craig is an apologist. Of course apologists rely on warm and fuzzy feelings instead of hard and cold evidence.[/quote]
HAHAHAHA…Wow, that was stupid. First, the title of “apologist” isn’t restricted to Christianity. Apologetics is the defense of a position. Richard Dawkins is an “apologist” for atheism. So are you. So in other words, whatever you say about “apologists” is also talking about yourself.

Secondly, have you even read [i]anything[/i] Craig has written or said? If you had, you’d know that the first two arguments he uses in debate are arguments straight from science. The third is a moral argument, which you think is also a scientific argument. If you honestly think that all Craig uses is “fuzzy feelings,” then you also have no hope.
[quote] You're getting completely confused between atheism and nihilism. Read some more about nihilism before you make unfounded assumptions that they are the same.
Nihilism. A lot of nihilists tend to be atheist, but most atheists are not nihilists.
[/quote]
I’m not saying that they are the same, for the fifth time. I’m merely saying that nihilism is a consequence of atheism, though some reject it because they’re not comfortable with it.

[quote] Why does YOUR life matter to your family and friends?[/quote]
Because my life as a Christian has a purpose. If I am right and God does exist, then God created us with a capacity to love and to cherish people. And that’s what we do. We cherish and love each other because we matter, because we’re worth something.

Now that I answered my own question, why don’t you take a stab at it?
[quote]As for me, everyday I interact with family and friends. Like, if I make them happy, my life means more to them.[/quote]
Honestly, that’s a very sad way to live life. If you were to make your family or friends mad or sad, would that mean that your life as a whole means less?

[quote] Again, BULL! Atheism is NOT nihilism or any other philosophy like that![/quote]
Once again, I’m not saying they’re one and the same. An airplane as a whole isn’t the same as the engines that it uses to fly. In the same way, atheism is not the same as nihilism. But one “uses” the other, or in this case, nihilism follows from atheism.
[quote]I actually feel quite sorry for you, as you just cannot imagine living a happy life without your skydaddy.[/quote]
This is also not what I’m saying. Many atheists I know live happy lives. But that is quite simply because they’re not being consistent with the application of their worldview.

You really need to read [url=http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=129]this[/url] if you want to understand where I’m coming from. Scroll down to the part that says “Assessment” to get to the really important part if you don’t want to read about the several philosophers who believe this. Here’s an excerpt:
[quote=William Lane Craig] About the only solution the atheist can offer is that we face the absurdity of life and live bravely. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that we must build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life. Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.
The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it is impossible to live consistently and happily within such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy; if one lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap, because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, would you consider this to be merely “fuzzy feelings?”
[quote]You cannot enjoy a beautiful scene without your god?[/quote]
I’m sure I could, actually. I would most likely still look at a powerful sunset and think, “That’s beautiful.” But of course, I would have to throw out the thought that it’s beautiful for a reason…That it appears designed because it is, rather than because it only has the appearance of design as Dawkins says. After all, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it’s probably a [i]frog,[/i] right?

[quote]You cannot enjoy art fully without your skydaddy?[/quote]
Now I know that this is definitely incorrect. I’m a musician, noor. I’m majoring in Music Composition next year in college. I’ve been singing, playing six other instruments since elementary school, and composing for four years. I know without a doubt that if I were to become an atheist, I would still enjoy the art of music.

I would have to put aside the thought that some things in music are beautiful for a reason. I’d have to reconcile the fact that all of the effort one takes to write out [i]The Messiah[/i] ultimately means nothing, and music is not sacred at all. But I would be able to enjoy it for what it was.

[quote]If yes, then your life has no purpose except for your skydaddy.[/quote]
True.

This is bad in what way, exactly?

[quote]From here:
"Atheists have purpose, the purposes they make for themselves.[/quote]
And here Mr. Holman proves my point. He admits that if atheism is true, then life has no purpose. And that’s why he says that we have to make our own. If you have to make one at all, that means you [i]didn’t have one originally.[/i]

[quote]The things that keep you going are the goals that you make for yourself, the desire to make the world a better place as you see fit, to promote what you feel should be promoted and accepted. Atheists have the same desire to carve out their own niche as do people of other beliefs.[/quote]
I believe that we have the desire to “carve out our own niche” because we actually [i]do[/i] have purpose, not because we’re deluding ourselves. But apparently, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, etc…it’s not.

[quote]You can use your own talents and abilities to make life better or worse for your fellow man, or you can choose not to participate at all (a.k.a. die). It is up to the individual to determine their purpose.[/quote]
Of course, Holman would rather that everyone use their talents and abilities to make life [i]better[/i] for everyone, or use them in the way that he is, in support of atheism. If someone didn’t, he wouldn’t treat them equally.

[quote]So much of our desire to live out a rich and full life is predetermined by evolution. We have been taught to survive, to thrive, if possible. We can override this instinct if we choose and take our own lives, but most of us take the time to enjoy life as it is set before us. It behooves us to make something of ourselves.[/quote]
Once again, if you have to “make something of [yourself],” then you were nothing before.

[quote]Our large brains can scarcely resist the temptation to explore our world. Our curiosity and the desire to seek out contentment and pleasure tend to keep us here for a while.[/quote]
I’d like to hear Mr. Holman’s explanation of how the pleasure of sex arrived.

[quote]There is nothing wrong with this. Why not drive the car until it breaks? Yes, my desire for ultimate contentment in the grave is appealing.[/quote]
Ultimate contentment? You will be [i]dead[/i]. You aren’t content because you aren’t feeling anything at all. You’re feeling what rocks feel.

[quote]Someday, it will become a treasured reality,[/quote]
…which you won’t be alive to actually “treasure.”

[quote]but I find that too easy just yet. When my life ceases to have value to me, when my quest for exploratory answers has reached it's end, when my days are filled no longer with happiness, but with overwhelming sorrow and pain instead, then I will take my leave of this world. When a life loses value to itself, that life should end."[/quote]
How shallow. And how is this appealing to you, noor?
[quote] Through evolution. The animals that had instinctial traits for reason survived better through natural selection.[/quote]
Where is your evidence that reason itself is material?
[quote]Oh, and as a side note, when you question reason, you have to first accept that reason is axiomatic, then only you can question it itself. Because when you question something, you are using reason to question it. If you ask, where did reason come from? you are using reason itself to ask your question.[/quote]
And here’s where we differ. I believe reason was created and instilled in us. You believe that there’s no real explanation for it, but it simply got here through evolution.
[quote] Certainly by now you've seen how unfounded your assertions are.[/quote]
If anything, all I’ve seen is your hypocrisy. “Here’s a newspaper article that doesn’t prove anything, but only suggests it is true. Now you can only refute it with peer review.”
[quote] You're dodging the point completely and changing the subject. And again, evolution by natural selection. The animals that had "gentler" tendencies were better equipped to survive and the more savage ones didn't. It's pretty simple really.[/quote]
Where is the line drawn between “gentle” and “savage?” I’m very, very curious.
[quote] If this faith is "experience", then why not call it experience or even knowledge?[/quote]
Because for one it’s not “knowledge.” It’s trust. One can have faith in something, trust something, and have it fail them. If you were to have faith in your boyfriend, that doesn’t mean that you know he won’t cheat on you, or you know he won’t break up with you.
[quote]There are two main forms of biblical faith:
1. "faith in the general goodness of god" like in Job's case, which begs the question that there is a god.[/quote]

[quote]2. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1."
"Hoped for" - a hope, without evidence, basically an unjustified belief.[/quote]
Did you even read the link? Here it is again: [url=http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]What is Faith?[/url]

From the link above:

“The list that follows offers examples of people who had been given undeniable proof of God's existence and power. Pistis here is a matter of trust in a God who has demonstrated His ability to be a worthy patron, and the examples are those of clients who, knowing this ability, trust in God's record as a patronal provider. Hebrews 11:1 therefore is telling us that faith (trust in our patron, gained by conviction based on evidence) is the substance (the word here means an assurance, as in a setting under, a concrete essence or an abstract assurance) of things hoped for (this word means expected by trust, which is something earned!), and the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, continuing favor from our patron, who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises. Blind faith? Not in the least! It is faith grounded in reality.”

[quote]Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)

Paul is saying that one cannot have noncontingent faith if there are facts. If one has a reason to believe, he cannot have theistic faith, by definition.[/quote]
No. He is saying, once again, “the evidence of that which is not seen, which in context means we expect, based on past performance, [i]continuing favor from our patron[/i], who has already proven Himself worthy of our trust by example, and this trust is our confidence in the fulfillment of future promises.”

If the word means trust based on performance (which it does) then you citing this verse is also incorrect.
[quote] Even you yourself said that atheism is a negative position. Then show me how the fuck a negative position assumes anything! A negative position cannot assume anything because there is nothing to assume in the first place![/quote]
If you assume the negative position that God does not exist, you’re assuming that all religions are fundamentally and profoundly mistaken and false. You’re assuming that only the natural world exists. You are assuming that an intelligent force was not needed for life to occur or for the universe to come into existence. You assume that all claims of “miracles” are incorrect. You assume that [i]all[/i] religious experience is a delusion.

Do you need me to go on?
[quote]Not all atheists necessarily agree with Sagan, either. Personally I am sort of agnostic over Sagan's quote.[/quote]
What’s to be agnostic about? If God has never existed, then the Cosmos is all there is, all there ever will be, and all there ever was.
[quote] First of all, as pointed out I messed up on the cyclic universe, sorry. But anyway, there are two main models as to the fate of the universe:
The Big Crunch - in which the current universe as we know it collapses on itself.

Forever expansion - in which it will continue to expand forever.[/quote]

[quote] Yep.[/quote]
Indeed.

Haha, how many different words can we use?

[quote] What about your god? Your god is supposed to have "always been there" which is pretty much an assumption. If god exists outside of time, he essentially had no time to create time![/quote]
Right. That’s exactly what “timeless” means…Not being bound by time. Good job. And if God is timeless, he doesn’t [i]need[/i] time to act.

[quote]As far as my position goes, I don't know. But I'm not jumping to any conclusions - whether that a god created it or that a god could not create it.[/quote]
Funny, I thought you based your beliefs on “hard, scientific facts.” But all you’re giving me is an assumption…Yet again.

Hey Christfolyfe & Noor,

When you get a chance check out the Announcements section & go to the forum called Juror Debate Rules. There's a deeper explanation there but I'll give a quick overview. 4 Atheists, Agnostics etc. & 4 Christians will act as a Jury trying to pass verdict on a case called "Is Christianity guilty of being a hoax?" Check it out & see if you would be intrested in being one of the jurors.

Praise God,
GWG

By your definition of evil(absence of good), what is evil? most diseases and most natural disasters are not evil under that definition

EDIT: sorry I'm jumping in to one point, at this point, I don't know the entirety of the argument, and as all our opinions differ, I'm sure that some of the points being made I disagree with and so on and I'd get backed into a seeming contradiction

as a matter of fact u can touch mars. All u have to do is get into ur spaceshuttle and go there. (that was a joke) anyway maybe i cant prove that god doesnt exist. But why dont u try to prove to me that he does? See now were even. And fyi this isnt anti christian this is just teens thinking freely, hence the name free thinking teens. Anyway i may b sounding rude but im not trying to. I respect ur opinion but u should try to voice it in a nicer manner.

[quote]I find that ironic, as it's assuming the nonexistence of an intelligent agency which could be supreme over nature. Something is evil only if it allows suffering.[/quote]
That's a [i]very[/i] flimsy definition. I won't even get into the discussion with you over why allowing suffering is "evil," while stopping suffering is "good," and how you define those two.

This is a very simple illustration, but bear with me. Suppose you own a dog, and it's time to take him to the vet. You wrestle him down and throw him in the car. You drive there and when he discovers where you are taking him, he starts to get antsy. He hides under your legs as you wait in the waiting room. You take him inside the room when it's your turn and the doctors stick a bunch of things in him and poke around. It's painful. He doesn't like it. But it's for his own good.

By your own definition, because you are allowing your dog to suffer, then you are [b]evil[/b]. Regardless of the motive behind the suffering, you are still evil.

You could concede and say, "Well, you are only evil if you allow suffering with no positive motive." And then I would, of course, come back and say that this is exactly what "natural evil" does, in my opinion.

I suggest you get a new definition of what is evil.

[quote]YOu would not say nature is evil because it is not willing what it does to happen, it just happens. But if a God made it that way, he is willing that suffering, and thus the natural damage would be evil.[/quote]
On second thought, I'll get into that discussion with you.

How is suffering "evil?" Is there anything wrong with anything and why?

[quote]If God is inherently good, then doesn't that necessitate the allowance of natural disasters and diseases to be inherently good?[/quote]
Of course not.

I know this response is extremely tired, but I'll use it anyway. As a Christian theist, I think that natural disasters and diseases often are on the surface "unfair" and over-the-top.[1] I think God could have chosen a better method.

I think that is one thing that we will never understand. Perhaps there [i]is[/i] an ultimately good motive to come out of a tornado going through a school and killing eight people. But we probably won't know it until months, possibly years later. And I do think also that all the suffering that we experience will pail in comparison to all the pleasure we will experience in heaven.

[1]Of course, I believe they are unfair because I believe there is an objective sense of justice and fairness.

[quote=AgnosticAtheist1] It would still be wrong for the Catholic priest to first rape you, then give you the candy[/quote]

It would be fucked up if the priest didn't have any candy and he just took off. :-p