If God doesn't exist...

[Epitah]

I have a whole universe that I can show you to prove my position. How about you?

You have to prove it encompasses a God, because you're the one that believes. I rejected that idea.

If I said there was a monster under my bed but you couldn't find any good reason to believe so, would it be up to me or you to prove there is a monster? What you're telling me here is that you're the one who needs to disprove the unsupported claim you're rejecting. If we have to accept everything if we can't disprove it then we'll have to accept a ton of shit.

A teapot created by a atheist philosopher who thought he could justify his position against all people who believe by saying the burden of proof belongs to the believer in God.

Because it does! The believers are the ones who honestly think that is the nature of reality and if they want to be justified in their position they have to prove it.

I've shown you my proof just open your eyes and look around.

Now show me yours. What kick started the universe?

You haven't shown me any proof aside from stating that you have proof but haven't shown it. And like I've said over, and over, and over, we don't know what "kick started" the universe, all we know is the Big Bang. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can shoehorn in anything we want as an explanation, that is called and argument from ignorance/god of the gaps argument.

 

[Epitah]

Really????? How small of uses are they meant to be applied at? The atomic level? Anything under 10 grams? Anything under a ton? The planetary scale? Interstellar? Intergalactic? Bigger? Do you even understand Newton's Laws Of Motion?

Smaller applications as in defined physical objects.

I don't understand how they contradict the Big Bang in any way either. Applying laws 1 and 2 make no sense to apply BB and law 3, while it might sound like an enticing argument at first, you then think about why it should be applied to the Big Bang, all physics cease to work before the Big Bang. You yourself haven't really even clarified your premise.

 

[james bond]

Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.

That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

.

That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.

Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity

Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.

The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....

Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...


sound familiar ...

.

Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.

It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character

Dear sealybobo in that case Adam is a symbolic representation, used to depict either the first lineage of humanity that had "self awareness" ie ego, selfish desires, and understanding of free will vs. collective will involving others.

Or representing the historic lineage of the Hebrews, laws and culture.

After consulting with various people on the story of Adam and Eve, three of the most common interpretations I have found are:
1. this represents the spiritual development of humanity starting with the "blind faith/obedience" relationship between humans and God similar to Children and Parents. the whole issue of obeying parental authority starts off at the beginning with blind faith where the child is spanked and punished at that stage, due to immaturity and inability to understand by reason yet. And it is the NT where the children grow to adult stages, and become mature enough to learn right from wrong by reason and experience, trial and error, free will -- instead of blind faith in the OT.
2. the representation of the spiritual shift from matriarchal to patriarchal cultures/society in the process of restoring balance in the final stages where humanity reaches maturity and no longer fights between these complimentary sides (can also be represented using church as a mother figure and state as a father figure collective, where human's male/female issues are projected collectively onto society and institutions while we play out this same struggle for equal respect/consent in relationships on both the individual level in our personal lives, and the global level for all humanity collectively over history)
3. the social class development between the women representing working class and field hands valued less for picking fruits/crops and working manually in the fields/agriculture
VS. the men representing the meat hunters and thus valued more by society and creating class division by the greater control of management/ownership position at the top of the pay scale over the women/workers at the bottom.

sealybobo do any of these paradigms explain to you the fall of humanity to the history of suffering and corruption/abuse/oppression we have in the world today? if so, that is what that Adam and Eve story represents, to different people focusing on different aspects of what causes the downfall and division of man destroying ourselves until we grow to mature states to solve this problems with inequality, injustice and social oppression.

Just wanted to add Adam and Eve were perfect humans. They had good bone density and skeletal structure, didn't need a lot of sleep to be productive, had awesome memory, great health, their off-spring could reproduce and not be concerned about genetic deformities, could live forever (longevity) and so on. It's what we strive for with science today. Basically, the norm was being great specimens. The norm also was natural selection, and through it they and life could diversify even more.

 

[james bond]

As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong. Here is another case. What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible. It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies. One of the reasons is science backs it up. Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need. It can help turnaround one's life. The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it. Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife. Science has verified many things in the Bible. For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end. It was the Steady State Theory. Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience. The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days. It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.

This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.

Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.

Ha ha again, atheists are usually wrong.

Christians do not hate science. They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory. Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.

 

[Epitah]

a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.

Christians do not hate science. They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory. Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.

Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.

Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.

 

[HUGGY]

a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.

Christians do not hate science. They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory. Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.

Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.

Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.

How did A & E understand the snake? Let's assume the snake was making any sense. It takes time to learn language skills both in the talking and the listening. The Human mind doesn't come pre-programmed so how is it we don't all speak snake? Did GAAWWWDDD speak in snake also? How did A & E communicate? It all sounds so unbelievable!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

[You have to prove it encompasses a God, because you're the one that believes. I rejected that idea.

And you are free to reject

If I said there was a monster under my bed but you couldn't find any good reason to believe so, would it be up to me or you to prove there is a monster?

Good enough... I do. No monster under there and I still haven't seen any kick start attached to the universe.

What you're telling me here is that you're the one who needs to disprove the unsupported claim you're rejecting.

Excuse me but you're the one rejecting my claim.

If we have to accept everything if we can't disprove it then we'll have to accept a ton of shit.

Yeah! Like kick starts that just happen to universes without explanation and the laws of physics magically disappearing as we go back in time to the time of your Big Bang (see below).

[Because it does! The believers are the ones who honestly think that is the nature of reality and if they want to be justified in their position they have to prove it.

Still haven't got that explanation from you for what kick started the universe.

Are you going to fill in the gap with that I don't know explanation?

You haven't shown me any proof aside from stating that you have proof but haven't shown it. And like I've said over, and over, and over, we don't know what "kick started" the universe, all we know is the Big Bang. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can shoehorn in anything we want as an explanation, that is called and argument from ignorance/god of the gaps argument.

I've shown you the whole universe!

However you keep referring to some magical event that you call the Big Bang that you say just happened sometime around 14 billion years ago and you can't provide me with anything except a magical teapot that caused it to happen.

Smaller applications as in defined physical objects.

I see... The universe isn't a physical object in your mind.

So what is it a magic teapot?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't understand how they contradict the Big Bang in any way either. Applying laws 1 and 2 make no sense to apply BB and law 3, while it might sound like an enticing argument at first, you then think about why it should be applied to the Big Bang, all physics cease to work before the Big Bang. You yourself haven't really even clarified your premise.

So now the law of physics don't exist in your Big Bang theology also?

Did the magical teapot take them away?

Prove it!

*****ROFLMAO*****





I wonder if the cat is half-dead or half-alive at this point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now what was that you were saying about facts? Oh wait! If this is true then I'll have to come up with a new question to confusticate and be-bother all the atheists as they run towards their new scientific consensus that they think disproves the existence of God. Don't worry though I'm sure I will be able to think up something and still avoid that little teapot.

You can't disprove a creator because it's an untestable hypothesis that you can't contradict. It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real. You still do not understand the onus of proof.

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

 

[Kristian]

God is Englismen and Israeli.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Cats and boxes
Rabbits and mirrors

Down and over
Roll die over here

(Hm.m..m... I'll have to work at it. I see potential)

******CHUCKLE*****

 

[Kristian]

Sweden and U.S. have Lord.

 

[Epitah]

Good enough... I do. No monster under there and I still haven't seen any kick start attached to the universe.

I don't think you quite understand. Just because we do not have an explanation right now does not mean there isn't one, and that does not mean you can just jump to another unsupported conclusion. Argument from ignorance.

I've shown you the whole universe!

However you keep referring to some magical event that you call the Big Bang that you say just happened sometime around 14 billion years ago and you can't provide me with anything except a magical teapot that caused it to happen.

You haven't shown anything.

At first I think you were fucking with me with your misinterpretations of the teapot but I'm beginning to suspect you're serious. The teapot is not supposed to be a real assertion.

Yeah! Like kick starts that just happen to universes without explanation and the laws of physics magically disappearing as we go back in time to the time of your Big Bang (see below).

Because scientist are unclear of how they apply to a pre-big bang existence.

 

[Epitah]

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.

 

[james bond]

a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.

Christians do not hate science. They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory. Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.

Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.

Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.

Ha ha. Wrong again. You're in denial in regards to science. It has the scientific method. How can religious scientists hate science? From Pew Research, they make up around 50%.

And most of your statements are opinions. Not much to argue there except point out the errors. I already refuted your Christians hate science error of opinion in front of all these people. Are you an atheist who knows about science since your attitude is to look down your nose at them? Doubtful.

I can explain the talking serpent since it is so incredulous to you. It's in the Bible, the most prodigious and best selling book in the world. How do you explain an universe from "nothing," ok, "invisible" particles?

The serpent speaking to Adam and Eve is referred to in Genesis 3. Of course, animals cannot talk but Satan was the one talking through the snake. That's how Bible scholars explain it. It all came to be because of free will.

 

[Edward_Palamar]

But He does . . .

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.

What claim is being made?

 

[Epitah]

What claim is being made?

The claim I'm talking about is there is a god/a creator. and as it applies to this forum, the monotheistic god of the bible.

 

[BreezeWood]

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.

What claim is being made?

.

What claim is being made?

To one without faith, no explanation is possible.


that one.

.

 

[Edward_Palamar]

St. Thomas Aquinas gets a thumbs-up from me.

Jesus had quoted Scripture regarding opening up the ears and eyes of those in darkness.

As God does exist, we are forever reliant upon Him.

Whether it be our next breath, thought, . . . whatever, God is the cause of all things.

But if one is blind and/or deaf to that basic fact, the darkness still pervades.

Because faith in God is a gift from God, a praise of thanksgiving is His due for allowing us to know Him.

 

[Epitah]

St. Thomas Aquinas gets a thumbs-up from me.

Jesus had quoted Scripture regarding opening up the ears and eyes of those in darkness.

As God does exist, we are forever reliant upon Him.

Whether it be our next breath, thought, . . . whatever, God is the cause of all things.

But if one is blind and/or deaf to that basic fact, the darkness still pervades.

Because faith in God is a gift from God, a praise of thanksgiving is His due for allowing us to know Him.

haha, okay, whatever man