Defining a 'True Christian'?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Hell is reserved for those who have chosen to reject God their entire lives. [/quote]

I do not believe the Christian concept of God is true. Will this result in me going to Hell?[/quote]

Yes, however, again this is not a punishment. Think about it. You don’t believe in God so you are saying you don’t want to be with God. In eternity, you will not be with God so you will have what you have chosen. I’m not saying this will be beneficial just that it is a natural consequence instead of a punishment.[/quote]

So god sends me to hell for not believing in him. Thats cool, that makes sense…

except, ya know, if god doesn’t exist. Then, there would be no god for which to send me to hell. Nor a hell to send me to.

So, telling me something I dont believe in will do something to me after I die? Not convincing. As well tell me gnomes will rape me in my sleep for not believing in them.[/quote]

Choosing not to believe in something, doesn’t make it not true. The important thing is to be right.[/quote]

Agreed. Also, choosing to believe in something does not make it true.

So how, then, do you determine what is true, without starting from one side or the other?

Logic? Reason? Oh dear, no. That’s sinful, fallen man stuff. You’ll be spiritually dead.[/quote]

Honestly there is not a right answer to this question. I can only tell you what I think and it begins with logic and reason. Don’t try to reconcile religion, just try to see if there is sufficient reason to believe in God. Religion doesn’t matter if there’s no God; it’d be little more than a waste of time.
For me it’s natural order, the blending of how the metaphysical interacts with the physical and the hierarchical assembly of both the physical and metaphysical. That’s the empirical side of it. The deductive side relies reliably on cosmology and the argument structure that ultimately with out fail leads to an Uncaused-cause.

Then you have to figure out whether this Causer of the universe actually gives a damn about you, a one billion-trillionth of a spec in respect to the universe.

Then you have to figure out whether or not you want to relate to this being. Then you look at religion as a potential means to communicate and relate.

It’s baby steps. Most folks are satisfied with divine revelation as their evidence and that’s fine, but it’s not sufficient for me. It’s all gotta work together somehow.

It’s takes some study, especially knowing well the arguments for and against God’s existence with out bias. You got to look at it logically.

But a lot of time with a glass of whiskey and a cigar can be rather educational too. I’ll just sit on the back deck, smoke, listen to music and think.

I found it was logically impossible for God not to exist. There is just no reconciliation for the problem of the Prime Mover. All these theoretical physicists and shit when they are working on the beginning of the universe, are trying to resolve this problem.

282

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Punishment would be an unfair consequence. [/quote]

I am not understanding where you get this definition.[/quote]

Ok, God tells you to believe in Him, worship Him, and honor his ways and you get to heaven. So going to heaven is the natural consequence for obeying God. God tells you that if you choose not to do those things you will go to hell. So hell is a natural consequence. It would only be a punishment if God just for kicks sent half the world to hell for a chuckle. [/quote]

I agree with what you’re saying, except until I get to your last premise or conclusion.

Look at the definition of punishment: Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group.

283

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Maybe “a true life” is poor word choice, but the rest of the sentence explains my meaning. >>>[/quote]I disagree. It was a fine choice of words. “True life” is exactly what life in Christ is. Actual life, authentic life, genuine life, the life of God, eternal life. No truer word than “true” could be marshaled to truthfully capture the truth of He who is full of grace and truth and who is truth itself, dwelling truly in our hearts.

284

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Hell is reserved for those who have chosen to reject God their entire lives. [/quote]

I do not believe the Christian concept of God is true. Will this result in me going to Hell?[/quote]

Yes, however, again this is not a punishment. Think about it. You don’t believe in God so you are saying you don’t want to be with God. In eternity, you will not be with God so you will have what you have chosen. I’m not saying this will be beneficial just that it is a natural consequence instead of a punishment.[/quote]

So god sends me to hell for not believing in him. Thats cool, that makes sense…

except, ya know, if god doesn’t exist. Then, there would be no god for which to send me to hell. Nor a hell to send me to.

So, telling me something I dont believe in will do something to me after I die? Not convincing. As well tell me gnomes will rape me in my sleep for not believing in them.[/quote]

Choosing not to believe in something, doesn’t make it not true. The important thing is to be right.[/quote]

Agreed. Also, choosing to believe in something does not make it true.

So how, then, do you determine what is true, without starting from one side or the other?

Logic? Reason? Oh dear, no. That’s sinful, fallen man stuff. You’ll be spiritually dead.[/quote]

Honestly there is not a right answer to this question. I can only tell you what I think and it begins with logic and reason. Don’t try to reconcile religion, just try to see if there is sufficient reason to believe in God. Religion doesn’t matter if there’s no God; it’d be little more than a waste of time.
For me it’s natural order, the blending of how the metaphysical interacts with the physical and the hierarchical assembly of both the physical and metaphysical. That’s the empirical side of it. The deductive side relies reliably on cosmology and the argument structure that ultimately with out fail leads to an Uncaused-cause.

Then you have to figure out whether this Causer of the universe actually gives a damn about you, a one billion-trillionth of a spec in respect to the universe.

Then you have to figure out whether or not you want to relate to this being. Then you look at religion as a potential means to communicate and relate.

It’s baby steps. Most folks are satisfied with divine revelation as their evidence and that’s fine, but it’s not sufficient for me. It’s all gotta work together somehow.

It’s takes some study, especially knowing well the arguments for and against God’s existence with out bias. You got to look at it logically.

But a lot of time with a glass of whiskey and a cigar can be rather educational too. I’ll just sit on the back deck, smoke, listen to music and think.

I found it was logically impossible for God not to exist. There is just no reconciliation for the problem of the Prime Mover. All these theoretical physicists and shit when they are working on the beginning of the universe, are trying to resolve this problem. [/quote]

The answer here, as usual, isn’t God. Its “we dont know”.

Believers like to harp on the “Atheists think the universe came from nothing!” strings, when that’s not true. Its another false dichotomy, wherein the Christian claims that either God created the universe, or nothing created the universe, then projects that fallacy on to the atheist. Its simply not true.

The truth is, we don’t know. Thats it. Saying “I dont know” is hugely different than saying “I know it came from nothing”.

Besides, your conclusion, “God did it” tells us nothing. Less than nothing, actually. It doesnt tell us why or how god did it.

Christians generally agree that God is something we can’t understand. We can’t understand why He does the things he does. And we can’t understand how he does them.

So, when you say “God did it,” you’re saying “Something we cant understand did it for reasons we cant understand using a process we can’t understand.”

Saying “God did it” and leaving it at that isn’t just an argument from ignorance (that we don’t know), its an argument for ignorance (that we can’t know).

So is there a Prime Mover? Maybe. I know know. Will we ever know? Maybe. I dont know. But know what I do know? Ain’t no Yahweh up in the clouds watching us all the time. Sorry. No answer > bad answer.

285

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The truth is, we don’t know. >>>[/quote]Actually the truth is we do know. Including you.

286

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The truth is, we don’t know. >>>[/quote]Actually the truth is we do know. Including you.
[/quote]

Nope. I dont, neither do you.

287

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Punishment would be an unfair consequence. [/quote]

I am not understanding where you get this definition.[/quote]

Ok, God tells you to believe in Him, worship Him, and honor his ways and you get to heaven. So going to heaven is the natural consequence for obeying God. God tells you that if you choose not to do those things you will go to hell. So hell is a natural consequence. It would only be a punishment if God just for kicks sent half the world to hell for a chuckle. [/quote]

I agree with what you’re saying, except until I get to your last premise or conclusion.

Look at the definition of punishment: Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group.

[/quote]

You can call it punishment if you want. I just choose not to because it makes it seem as if the consequence doesn’t quite fit the behavior. I also agree that hell will be unpleasant. I just think that the idea that hell is going to be round the clock torture and pain is false. The agony of hell will be total absence of God. Those who are there will only realize then when it is too late that this is more agony than any physical pain that can be imposed.

288

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The truth is, we don’t know. >>>[/quote]Actually the truth is we do know. Including you.
[/quote]<<< Nope. I dont, neither do you. [/quote]This might be wunna them there disagreements.

289

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Hell is reserved for those who have chosen to reject God their entire lives. [/quote]

I do not believe the Christian concept of God is true. Will this result in me going to Hell?[/quote]

Yes, however, again this is not a punishment. Think about it. You don’t believe in God so you are saying you don’t want to be with God. In eternity, you will not be with God so you will have what you have chosen. I’m not saying this will be beneficial just that it is a natural consequence instead of a punishment.[/quote]

So god sends me to hell for not believing in him. Thats cool, that makes sense…

except, ya know, if god doesn’t exist. Then, there would be no god for which to send me to hell. Nor a hell to send me to.

So, telling me something I dont believe in will do something to me after I die? Not convincing. As well tell me gnomes will rape me in my sleep for not believing in them.[/quote]

Choosing not to believe in something, doesn’t make it not true. The important thing is to be right.[/quote]

Agreed. Also, choosing to believe in something does not make it true.

So how, then, do you determine what is true, without starting from one side or the other?

Logic? Reason? Oh dear, no. That’s sinful, fallen man stuff. You’ll be spiritually dead.[/quote]

Honestly there is not a right answer to this question. I can only tell you what I think and it begins with logic and reason. Don’t try to reconcile religion, just try to see if there is sufficient reason to believe in God. Religion doesn’t matter if there’s no God; it’d be little more than a waste of time.
For me it’s natural order, the blending of how the metaphysical interacts with the physical and the hierarchical assembly of both the physical and metaphysical. That’s the empirical side of it. The deductive side relies reliably on cosmology and the argument structure that ultimately with out fail leads to an Uncaused-cause.

Then you have to figure out whether this Causer of the universe actually gives a damn about you, a one billion-trillionth of a spec in respect to the universe.

Then you have to figure out whether or not you want to relate to this being. Then you look at religion as a potential means to communicate and relate.

It’s baby steps. Most folks are satisfied with divine revelation as their evidence and that’s fine, but it’s not sufficient for me. It’s all gotta work together somehow.

It’s takes some study, especially knowing well the arguments for and against God’s existence with out bias. You got to look at it logically.

But a lot of time with a glass of whiskey and a cigar can be rather educational too. I’ll just sit on the back deck, smoke, listen to music and think.

I found it was logically impossible for God not to exist. There is just no reconciliation for the problem of the Prime Mover. All these theoretical physicists and shit when they are working on the beginning of the universe, are trying to resolve this problem. [/quote]

The answer here, as usual, isn’t God. Its “we dont know”.

Believers like to harp on the “Atheists think the universe came from nothing!” strings, when that’s not true. Its another false dichotomy, wherein the Christian claims that either God created the universe, or nothing created the universe, then projects that fallacy on to the atheist. Its simply not true.

The truth is, we don’t know. Thats it. Saying “I dont know” is hugely different than saying “I know it came from nothing”.

Besides, your conclusion, “God did it” tells us nothing. Less than nothing, actually. It doesnt tell us why or how god did it.

Christians generally agree that God is something we can’t understand. We can’t understand why He does the things he does. And we can’t understand how he does them.

So, when you say “God did it,” you’re saying “Something we cant understand did it for reasons we cant understand using a process we can’t understand.”

Saying “God did it” and leaving it at that isn’t just an argument from ignorance (that we don’t know), its an argument for ignorance (that we can’t know).

So is there a Prime Mover? Maybe. I know know. Will we ever know? Maybe. I dont know. But know what I do know? Ain’t no Yahweh up in the clouds watching us all the time. Sorry. No answer > bad answer.[/quote]

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason. There is nothing you can do about it. The best minds in the world are on it and they reconcile, becuase there is always something, not nothing. You cannot emulate nothingness in a lab. Even Hawking has recently postulated that the universe came frm nothing because of gravity. Ok, where did gravity come from? Hell, what is gravity? Nobody knows not even him. It is an in inescapable problem. The eternal universe theory does not solve the problem either, since all that exists is contingent.

The whole “God did it” is the God of gaps theory and that is not what’s being asserted. The resolution is necessary, not ‘we don’t know therefore God did it’. You can’t start with a conclusion and find ways to prove it, let the premises guide you. The argument is fool proof, you can only attack it’s premises to prove it wrong. If the premises are wrong then the argument is probably wrong.
This is called seeing with the minds eye. It’s the same way Einstein was able to prove the existence of black holes with out ever having any proof. He did it with math and reason.

Now if you don’t know, don’t want to know and don’t care, that’s fine with me, but don’t mock people who have put in the time to understand this stuff and have come to a conclusion different from yours. You’re going to have to in the effort to refute these arguments, rather than say "it’s not true, trust me’.

290

[quote]pat wrote:

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]

No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.

Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.

As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”

If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.

If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.

Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”

Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.

291

Its just more of the usual Christian false dichotomy stuff. Answer a question we dont know the answer to with “God did it”, then assert that “Either God did it or it comes from nothing, therefore God exists and god did it.”

Hey, Pat, hows this for an answer: something that we don’t yet know or understand (yet makes actual logical sense unlike your imaginary Yahweh) created the universe.

How’s that for an answer that “must necessarily” mean “the universe came from nothing for no reason”?

292

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]

No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.

Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.

As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”

If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.

If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.

Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”

Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.

[/quote]

Then you are unique among athiests, because many claim to know how and why the universe came from nothing.

I’ll rephrase if you do not believe that existence came from something you must necessarily believe it came from nothing. And this something must have at least two properties, it must be uncaused and yet cause. There’s only two options on the table and you reject one of them, therefore you must accept the other. You cannot reject both with a simple I don’t know.

If you don’t care, that’s fine with me.
But you asserting this “I don’t know and I don’t care, but God could not have created it.” Not knowing and/ or not caring does not support the conclusion that God does not exist.

So what you have is this. ‘I don’t know, but I know it wasn’t God’ ← Oh really? How?

293

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its just more of the usual Christian false dichotomy stuff. Answer a question we dont know the answer to with “God did it”, then assert that “Either God did it or it comes from nothing, therefore God exists and god did it.”

Hey, Pat, hows this for an answer: something that we don’t yet know or understand (yet makes actual logical sense unlike your imaginary Yahweh) created the universe.

How’s that for an answer that “must necessarily” mean “the universe came from nothing for no reason”?[/quote]

It’s a stupid answer, sorry. Just being honest.

294

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Punishment would be an unfair consequence. [/quote]

I am not understanding where you get this definition.[/quote]

Ok, God tells you to believe in Him, worship Him, and honor his ways and you get to heaven. So going to heaven is the natural consequence for obeying God. God tells you that if you choose not to do those things you will go to hell. So hell is a natural consequence. It would only be a punishment if God just for kicks sent half the world to hell for a chuckle. [/quote]

I agree with what you’re saying, except until I get to your last premise or conclusion.

Look at the definition of punishment: Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group.

[/quote]

You can call it punishment if you want. I just choose not to because it makes it seem as if the consequence doesn’t quite fit the behavior. I also agree that hell will be unpleasant. I just think that the idea that hell is going to be round the clock torture and pain is false. The agony of hell will be total absence of God. Those who are there will only realize then when it is too late that this is more agony than any physical pain that can be imposed.[/quote]

I do call it a punishment. I don’t think it is false, they are cast out forever, they weep and gnash their teeth. There is no relief for them. There is also a physical pain that comes at the final judgement when the corrupted bodies of men are rejoined with their spirits in Hell.

295

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]

No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.

Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.

As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”

If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.

If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.

Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”

Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.

[/quote]

Then you are unique among athiests, because many claim to know how and why the universe came from nothing.

I’ll rephrase if you do not believe that existence came from something you must necessarily believe it came from nothing. And this something must have at least two properties, it must be uncaused and yet cause. There’s only two options on the table and you reject one of them, therefore you must accept the other. You cannot reject both with a simple I don’t know.

If you don’t care, that’s fine with me.
But you asserting this “I don’t know and I don’t care, but God could not have created it.” Not knowing and/ or not caring does not support the conclusion that God does not exist.

So what you have is this. ‘I don’t know, but I know it wasn’t God’ ← Oh really? How?[/quote]

Too much fail. Can not handle.

Aliens from another universe created ours for sport. Please disprove.

My friend Matt used a magic wand to create the universe. Please disprove.

How do I know it wasn’t god? Because you geniuses have had two thousand fucking years to come up with a scrap of evidence and you’ve failed. You have a book of nonsense mythology and now artistic interpretations of natural occurences (Babies being born proves god!!) to lean on.

You believed there was a man up in the sky. People built rockets. Found no god. That just…uhhhhhh… means god is invisible, yeah! he’s everywhere at once!

296

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]

No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.

Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.

As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”

If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.

If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.

Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”

Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.

[/quote]

Then you are unique among athiests, because many claim to know how and why the universe came from nothing.

I’ll rephrase if you do not believe that existence came from something you must necessarily believe it came from nothing. And this something must have at least two properties, it must be uncaused and yet cause. There’s only two options on the table and you reject one of them, therefore you must accept the other. You cannot reject both with a simple I don’t know.

If you don’t care, that’s fine with me.
But you asserting this “I don’t know and I don’t care, but God could not have created it.” Not knowing and/ or not caring does not support the conclusion that God does not exist.

So what you have is this. ‘I don’t know, but I know it wasn’t God’ ← Oh really? How?[/quote]

Too much fail. Can not handle.

Aliens from another universe created ours for sport. Please disprove.

My friend Matt used a magic wand to create the universe. Please disprove.

How do I know it wasn’t god? Because you geniuses have had two thousand fucking years to come up with a scrap of evidence and you’ve failed. You have a book of nonsense mythology and now artistic interpretations of natural occurences (Babies being born proves god!!) to lean on.

You believed there was a man up in the sky. People built rockets. Found no god. That just…uhhhhhh… means god is invisible, yeah! he’s everywhere at once! [/quote]

Um…straw man?

297

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You aren’t thinking this through. First of all, yes, athiests must necessarily believe an existence from nothing for no reason.
[/quote]

No. No, no, no, no, no. this is wrong. Untrue. Incorrect. Could not be farther from the truth. And its really fucking annoying that you’d even make such a stupid claim.

Atheist must necessarily believe that there is no God. That’s it.

As to the origins of the universe? Atheists admit they dont know. Let me, again try to explain to you the difference between “I dont know” and “I know it is nothing.”

If I asked you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, you would say “I dont know.” This would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that he is buried nowhere.

If I asked you who assassinated JFK, you would answer “I don’t know.” this would not mean you “must necessarily believe” that no one shot him.

Atheists do not claim to know how, why, or by what the universe was created. This is NOT THE SAME THING as “Atheists claim to know how, why, and by what the universe was created and atheists claim the universe came from nothing, for no reason, without a force to create it.”

Please. Stop making dumb statments about what other people “must necessarily” believe in order to make a weak attempt at your “An invisible wizard man up in the sky did it” answer seem more plausible.

[/quote]

Then you are unique among athiests, because many claim to know how and why the universe came from nothing.

I’ll rephrase if you do not believe that existence came from something you must necessarily believe it came from nothing. And this something must have at least two properties, it must be uncaused and yet cause. There’s only two options on the table and you reject one of them, therefore you must accept the other. You cannot reject both with a simple I don’t know.

If you don’t care, that’s fine with me.
But you asserting this “I don’t know and I don’t care, but God could not have created it.” Not knowing and/ or not caring does not support the conclusion that God does not exist.

So what you have is this. ‘I don’t know, but I know it wasn’t God’ ← Oh really? How?[/quote]

Too much fail. Can not handle.

Aliens from another universe created ours for sport. Please disprove.

My friend Matt used a magic wand to create the universe. Please disprove.

How do I know it wasn’t god? Because you geniuses have had two thousand fucking years to come up with a scrap of evidence and you’ve failed. You have a book of nonsense mythology and now artistic interpretations of natural occurences (Babies being born proves god!!) to lean on.

You believed there was a man up in the sky. People built rockets. Found no god. That just…uhhhhhh… means god is invisible, yeah! he’s everywhere at once! [/quote]

Um…straw man? [/quote]

Argument from ignorance?

“The universe exists, we dont know how or why. Must be God.”

298

I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.

There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.

299

[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.

There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]

Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true, I doubt it will be 100%. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.

The viable explanations for the existence for the universe are based on way weaker logic. Stings, E8’s, null theories, etc are all incomplete and no one even claims to be close, and despite that they still cannot dispell the need for cosmology. A temporally eternally existing universe is not sufficient to explain contingency.

300

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.

There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]

Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]

Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?