If God Doesn’t Exist

[esalla]

Since no one can explain how DNA a supernatural creator created itself a creator is required, an endless hierarchy of super-supernatural creators is required, this is a scientific requirement.

That really is the most ignorant objection of all. I mean, there are no words strong enough to express how ignorant that is.

Obviously God as the CREATOR and the First Cause is uncreated. God is eternal, which means unlike the rest of us created beings, God has no beginning and no end. So to ask who created God is like asking why 2+2 = 5 or why a man is a woman… it's nonsensical. But I noticed that in almost every atheism vs theism debate, that ignorant objection comes up, by someone who thinks they're being clever.

Your claim to your CREATOR gods as the first cause gods is in conflict with others making the same claim for their CREATOR gods.

How do you know your CREATOR gods are eternal? Why should anyone beside you accept that?

You asked this question before and I answered you already. I'm not going to dig through the thread to try to find the post, or rewrite the whole thing. I'll give you the Cliff Notes version. First of all, I don't have "gods" plural, I only have one God because there only IS one God. Secondly, it's not rocket science to seek the truth, to examine and compare different beliefs systems, to see which one has evidence and valid reasons to believe, to weigh the evidence, etc., etc. It's really not that hard.

But as I said to you before, ultimately God is the one who opens our eyes, when the time is right. And as I said to you before, the time will never be right if your heart is hard and you are blinded by stubborn pride. That is not just my opinion, the scriptures are very clear that pride cuts us off from God.

I see nothing in your statement that separates your god(s) from any of the others. Your claim that there is only one god is in conflict with other religions that had, and have, many gods.

I see nothing presented to support evidence of miracles and supernatural events to suggest that valid reasons exist for believing in your religion vs. another.

Is it really stubborn to reject unsupported claims, or is it being objective and honest? Isn't it being honest with the gods to reject belief in superstition and that which is unsupported?

Maybe the gods have, after all, opened my eyes and blessed me for having the conviction of conscience.

Still waiting for you to show us speciation kiddy

 

[Meriweather]

I'm still an unbeliever which is a term you hurl as an insult.

You would probably be the first to agree that facts are not insults--it is simply a remark on what is. I doubt you would like to be known as a believer.

You were remarking earlier on the thought that Christianity borrowed from Judaism. More accurately, Christianity is rooted in Judaism. As most gardeners have observed, sometimes plants will crawl apart from the original plant and establish another set of roots, yet remain remarkably the same as the mother plant.

The main difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism teaches that no man can also be God. The other difference that often strikes me is that Judaism teaches love of the Law leads to love of God. Christianity often takes the opposite approach. Love of God leads to love of the Law. Do you think one is more right than the other? If so, why?

 

[LittleNipper]

Since no one can explain how DNA a supernatural creator created itself a creator is required, an endless hierarchy of super-supernatural creators is required, this is a scientific requirement.

That really is the most ignorant objection of all. I mean, there are no words strong enough to express how ignorant that is.

Obviously God as the CREATOR and the First Cause is uncreated. God is eternal, which means unlike the rest of us created beings, God has no beginning and no end. So to ask who created God is like asking why 2+2 = 5 or why a man is a woman… it's nonsensical. But I noticed that in almost every atheism vs theism debate, that ignorant objection comes up, by someone who thinks they're being clever.

Your claim to your CREATOR gods as the first cause gods is in conflict with others making the same claim for their CREATOR gods.

How do you know your CREATOR gods are eternal? Why should anyone beside you accept that?

Our CREATOR said that HE always is and that there are no other gods beside HIMSELF ever. HE stipulates this in the WORD HE inspired to be revealed to us. We can believe this to be true because again and again, we find that the Bible history is dependable, and the Bible is filled with prophecy (unlike other so-called messages from some other gods) that have come to pass ----- and are currently being fulfilled as we speak. The Bible also demonstrates logical repercussions for thoughtless deeds. All of this indicates that the BIBLE is in fact GOD inspired and that it points to the only one true GOD that everyone can trust and believe. Nature, the Bible, and the continued unabated existence of JEWS all point to the only GOD there is and HIS oneness with the MESSIAH. And JESUS in fact not only fulfills biblical prophecy, HE openly reiterated everything the Old Testament revealed.

 

[esalla]

I'm still an unbeliever which is a term you hurl as an insult.

You would probably be the first to agree that facts are not insults--it is simply a remark on what is. I doubt you would like to be known as a believer.

You were remarking earlier on the thought that Christianity borrowed from Judaism. More accurately, Christianity is rooted in Judaism. As most gardeners have observed, sometimes plants will crawl apart from the original plant and establish another set of roots, yet remain remarkably the same as the mother plant.

The main difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism teaches that no man can also be God. The other difference that often strikes me is that Judaism teaches love of the Law leads to love of God. Christianity often takes the opposite approach. Love of God leads to love of the Law. Do you think one is more right than the other? If so, why?

Are you kidding Hollie just makes up nonsense as she goes, she also parrots her leaders, please do not ask her to think

 

[Meriweather]

Are you kidding Hollie just makes up nonsense as she goes

Not always. I sometimes find it difficult to get her to focus on what I am saying instead of her focusing on what she thinks I believe and therefore what she thinks I "must" be saying.

People who believe are first and foremost unique individuals--and that is also true of those who do not believe. For a good conversation, it is vital that we all keep this foremost in mind. My opinion.

 

[Hollie]

Since no one can explain how DNA a supernatural creator created itself a creator is required, an endless hierarchy of super-supernatural creators is required, this is a scientific requirement.

That really is the most ignorant objection of all. I mean, there are no words strong enough to express how ignorant that is.

Obviously God as the CREATOR and the First Cause is uncreated. God is eternal, which means unlike the rest of us created beings, God has no beginning and no end. So to ask who created God is like asking why 2+2 = 5 or why a man is a woman… it's nonsensical. But I noticed that in almost every atheism vs theism debate, that ignorant objection comes up, by someone who thinks they're being clever.

Your claim to your CREATOR gods as the first cause gods is in conflict with others making the same claim for their CREATOR gods.

How do you know your CREATOR gods are eternal? Why should anyone beside you accept that?

Our CREATOR said that HE always is and that there are no other gods beside HIMSELF ever. HE stipulates this in the WORD HE inspired to be revealed to us. We can believe this to be true because again and again, we find that the Bible history is dependable, and the Bible is filled with prophecy (unlike other so-called messages from some other gods) that have come to pass ----- and are currently being fulfilled as we speak. The Bible also demonstrates logical repercussions for thoughtless deeds. All of this indicates that the BIBLE is in fact GOD inspired and that it points to the only one true GOD that everyone can trust and believe. Nature, the Bible, and the continued unabated existence of JEWS all point to the only GOD there is and HIS oneness with the MESSIAH. And JESUS in fact not only fulfills biblical prophecy, HE openly reiterated everything the Old Testament revealed.

It is curious that those who claim Bible prophesy are never able to provide any specific detail about those alleged prophesies. As to the gods ''inspiring'' the Bible, that's a rather untenable claim as the writers of the Bible are largely unknown.

 

[Hollie]

Are you kidding Hollie just makes up nonsense as she goes

Not always. I sometimes find it difficult to get her to focus on what I am saying instead of her focusing on what she thinks I believe and therefore what she thinks I "must" be saying.

People who believe are first and foremost unique individuals--and that is also true of those who do not believe. For a good conversation, it is vital that we all keep this foremost in mind. My opinion.

I'll note that the believers tend to focus their arguments in terms of absolutes: their gods are the ''true'' gods, there's no questioning the absolute authority of their god, etc.

The believers seem to have difficulty focusing on a basic premise that an argument needs a certain connection of ideas and statements allowing a logical relationship leading to a supportable conclusion.

 

[esalla]

Are you kidding Hollie just makes up nonsense as she goes

Not always. I sometimes find it difficult to get her to focus on what I am saying instead of her focusing on what she thinks I believe and therefore what she thinks I "must" be saying.

People who believe are first and foremost unique individuals--and that is also true of those who do not believe. For a good conversation, it is vital that we all keep this foremost in mind. My opinion.

Again Hollie does not think anything, all she does is parrot, no intelligence needed

 

[Meriweather]

I'll note that the believers tend to focus their arguments in terms of absolutes: their gods are the ''true'' gods, there's no questioning the absolute authority of their god, etc.

The believers seem to have difficulty focusing on a basic premise that an argument needs a certain connection of ideas and statements allowing a logical relationship leading to a supportable conclusion.

How did you ever come to these conclusions? What is your experience? Please be specific.

I am one who believes, and what you are saying comes across as babble--kind of like someone decided you had been brainwashed, so brainwashed you again. You are so quick to tell others what they believe, and you are almost always wrong about "their" beliefs.

Do you understand that many of us here do not care in the least that you are a non-believer, that we are interested in your thinking and are quickly bored when instead you try to tell us what we think because you are so far off base we cannot even connect with you.

 

[Meriweather]

Again Hollie does not think anything, all she does is parrot, no intelligence needed

Let's give her a chance. She is either here because she has insights she wishes to share with us. Alternatively she is here to combat beliefs that she feels we have. Since we do not hold the beliefs she feels we have, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Hollie]

I'll note that the believers tend to focus their arguments in terms of absolutes: their gods are the ''true'' gods, there's no questioning the absolute authority of their god, etc.

The believers seem to have difficulty focusing on a basic premise that an argument needs a certain connection of ideas and statements allowing a logical relationship leading to a supportable conclusion.

How did you ever come to these conclusions? What is your experience? Please be specific.

I am one who believes, and what you are saying comes across as babble--kind of like someone decided you had been brainwashed, so brainwashed you again. You are so quick to tell others what they believe, and you are almost always wrong about "their" beliefs.

Do you understand that many of us here do not care in the least that you are a non-believer, that we are interested in your thinking and are quickly bored when instead you try to tell us what we think because you are so far off base we cannot even connect with you.

I would like to give the believers a chance to present a coherent argument for supernaturalism. You seem to have missed the believers carrying on with statements in absolute terms about their god and the inerrancy of their beliefs. Inerrancy is hardly an attribute one can assign to claims of the supernatural. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and acknowledged. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless as various believers also claim inerrancy in their interpretation of it which inevitably will clash with the interpretation of another believer.

 

[Meriweather]

I would like to give the believers a chance to present a coherent argument for supernaturalism.

Why? What do you plan to do with their argument? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[Meriweather]

You seem to have missed the believers carrying on with statements in absolute terms about their god and the inerrancy of their beliefs.

There are people of faith who are very firm in their beliefs. Aren't you firm is yours? What is it to you what others believe?

 

[Meriweather]

Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and acknowledged. Inerrancy makes that impossible.

Faith is not a math assignment. It is a way of life. Who are you, or who is anybody, who believes they should be able to tell people what to believe and how to live life?

 

[Meriweather]

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless as various believers also claim inerrancy in their interpretation of it which inevitably will clash with the interpretation of another believer.

Is claiming your beliefs inerrant also pointless?

 

[Hollie]

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless as various believers also claim inerrancy in their interpretation of it which inevitably will clash with the interpretation of another believer.

Is claiming your beliefs inerrant also pointless?

What beliefs have I claimed are inerrant?

 

[Meriweather]

I would like to give the believers a chance to present a coherent argument for supernaturalism. You seem to have missed the believers carrying on with statements in absolute terms about their god and the inerrancy of their beliefs. Inerrancy is hardly an attribute one can assign to claims of the supernatural. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and acknowledged. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless as various believers also claim inerrancy in their interpretation of it which inevitably will clash with the interpretation of another believer.

Hollie, I am from a family of many faiths--Judaism, Catholic, Protestant; Buddhism. And atheists.

You seem to scoff at "true" God. By true, we mean the reality of God. When some are given the reality of God--or choose to follow the path of the reality of God--they easily dismiss anything that interferes with that reality. A 144 hour, young earth creation is to them the reality and the power of God. Nothing else holds a greater interest for them. They are much too interested in this to go chasing off on scientific hypotheses and theories. Those things do not matter to their personal lives. (Obviously, none of these are science teachers.)

Yes, some of the strongest people of faith in my family are somewhat bemused and amused when I investigate the cultural idioms, metaphors, and symbolism ancient cultures use. Why make something easy so complicated? Just believe God's hand is in all. I do believe in God's hand in all, and God in our midst. But I still have great interest in how people of earlier times (and people of today) understand these accounts. These are hobbies I pursue because of my faith, but also because of personal interest.

Everyone in my family, of course, have made mistakes in personal choices and in their personal lives--but they have all striven to do their best and to be the best they can be. In this small sample it is the people of greater faith and the atheists who have been most successful at this. Those who really don't follow their faith very closely, but say they are not atheist either seem to have the greater struggle. This has interested me, but of course one small sample is relatively meaningless.

The greater percentage of people in my family follow science and have no problem at all with creation and evolution working hand-in-glove. No one knows enough about creation and evolution yet. What many of us do know is the reality of God, who is not physical, and therefore there is not the physical proof for which you yearn for so desperately. My advice in this, is why look for a physical proof that is not there? Seek the reality of God--if you are interested in God. If not, then be a good atheist and stop tormenting Young Earth Creationists who simply wish to live with the Reality of God. It is not a bad choice. Sure, being a science teacher, I wish they could see the physical reality of the planet as well. However, in most cases, that is never going to make a huge difference in their kindness and care towards the people in their lives. Loving God and passing on the love of God is what will make the difference.

 

[Meriweather]

What beliefs have I claimed are inerrant?

Scientific facts. We do have some, you know.

 

[Hollie]

What beliefs have I claimed are inerrant?

Scientific facts. We do have some, you know.

Correct. I’ve never claimed science is inerrant. In fact, I’ve noted the fluid nature of science and the need to modify knowledge as new information becomes available.

 

[Hollie]

I would like to give the believers a chance to present a coherent argument for supernaturalism. You seem to have missed the believers carrying on with statements in absolute terms about their god and the inerrancy of their beliefs. Inerrancy is hardly an attribute one can assign to claims of the supernatural. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and acknowledged. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless as various believers also claim inerrancy in their interpretation of it which inevitably will clash with the interpretation of another believer.

Hollie, I am from a family of many faiths--Judaism, Catholic, Protestant; Buddhism. And atheists.

You seem to scoff at "true" God. By true, we mean the reality of God. When some are given the reality of God--or choose to follow the path of the reality of God--they easily dismiss anything that interferes with that reality. A 144 hour, young earth creation is to them the reality and the power of God. Nothing else holds a greater interest for them. They are much too interested in this to go chasing off on scientific hypotheses and theories. Those things do not matter to their personal lives. (Obviously, none of these are science teachers.)

Yes, some of the strongest people of faith in my family are somewhat bemused and amused when I investigate the cultural idioms, metaphors, and symbolism ancient cultures use. Why make something easy so complicated? Just believe God's hand is in all. I do believe in God's hand in all, and God in our midst. But I still have great interest in how people of earlier times (and people of today) understand these accounts. These are hobbies I pursue because of my faith, but also because of personal interest.

Everyone in my family, of course, have made mistakes in personal choices and in their personal lives--but they have all striven to do their best and to be the best they can be. In this small sample it is the people of greater faith and the atheists who have been most successful at this. Those who really don't follow their faith very closely, but say they are not atheist either seem to have the greater struggle. This has interested me, but of course one small sample is relatively meaningless.

The greater percentage of people in my family follow science and have no problem at all with creation and evolution working hand-in-glove. No one knows enough about creation and evolution yet. What many of us do know is the reality of God, who is not physical, and therefore there is not the physical proof for which you yearn for so desperately. My advice in this, is why look for a physical proof that is not there? Seek the reality of God--if you are interested in God. If not, then be a good atheist and stop tormenting Young Earth Creationists who simply wish to live with the Reality of God. It is not a bad choice. Sure, being a science teacher, I wish they could see the physical reality of the planet as well. However, in most cases, that is never going to make a huge difference in their kindness and care towards the people in their lives. Loving God and passing on the love of God is what will make the difference.

Who is torturing YEC’ists?

No one is required to post in these forums. If YEC’ists are offended that their claims to some rather bizarre, literalist notions of Bible inerrancy are challenged, I should remind them that this is a public discussion forum.

The YEC’ists are not necessarily the innocuous, “live with the Reality of God” people you describe. They also include the angry, militant types who want to force their religion into the public schools. They despise knowledge and exult in their ignorance of science. Their animosity to education is palpable. The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. There are consequences to such attitudes. We live in a competitive, technical world.