The universe had a beginning.

[ThinClient]

Show me evidence to the contrary.

That's the best part about science! I don't have to show you evidence to the contrary to invalidate your bullshit positive claim that has no evidence! Sure, that's one way to prove you wrong, but the other way is to simply hold you to your obligation of providing evidence to support your own claim.

Woohoo!

 

[ThinClient]

How does that prove whether or not there is a God?

How does anything you've said prove that there's a god?

 

[exdeath]

I am Monado. I was here at the beginning. And I will proclaim the end.

 

[ThinClient]

Something tells me that those questions I've just asked will NEVER be answered or even attempted without changing the subject or some other kind of deflection or straw man argument.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

As an Agnostic I find these threads amusing as I haven't seen anything compelling from either side that either proves or disproves the existence of a God. Looks like I'll be an Agnostic from some time to come.

 

[fskimospy]

As an Agnostic I find these threads amusing as I haven't seen anything compelling from either side that either proves or disproves the existence of a God. Looks like I'll be an Agnostic from some time to come.

God cannot be disproven, but that's not the way that rational argument works. Making fun of that kind of argument is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is about.

If you take atheism to mean 'I am certain there is no god' then nobody can really be an atheist. That being said, when there is no evidence for god's existence and the arguments for the probability of such an existence so uncompelling, I would say that I am an atheist in the sense that I simply exist without theism.

 

[MagickMan]

As an Agnostic I find these threads amusing as I haven't seen anything compelling from either side that either proves or disproves the existence of a God. Looks like I'll be an Agnostic from some time to come.

Yep. If a person chooses to believe, and it enriches their life spiritually, more power to them. What annoys me are evangelists from both sides, I don't want to bothered with theist or anti-theist rhetoric and get equally irritated with both.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yep. If a person chooses to believe, and it enriches their life spiritually, more power to them. What annoys me are evangelists from both sides, I don't want to bothered with theist or anti-theist rhetoric and get equally irritated with both.

What doesn't annoy but amuses me is when people who claim no interest in the topic pipe up to proclaim that disinterest as a form of superior perspective, implying the inferiority of others by insinuating they are annoying. It seems as if the egotistical self flatterers par possessed of a penchant
To butt in and announce the fattens of their heads even when they don't have a dog in the race.

 

[ThinClient]

As an Agnostic I find these threads amusing as I haven't seen anything compelling from either side that either proves or disproves the existence of a God. Looks like I'll be an Agnostic from some time to come.

Facepalm. Disproving god.

You haven't seen anything compelling because you apparently are not intelligent enough to follow along and understand the compelling points that at least one side is repeatedly bringing to the table.

 

[ThinClient]

Yep. If a person chooses to believe, and it enriches their life spiritually, more power to them. What annoys me are evangelists from both sides, I don't want to bothered with theist or anti-theist rhetoric and get equally irritated with both.

Then why the fuck did you click this thread.

 

[Fern]

God suffers from every first cause argument that the universe does. The only way theists get around this is by simply declaring him immune from it.

I'm curious what you mean. I.e., what are the "first cause arguments" that the universe suffers from?

TIA

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Then why the fuck did you click this thread.

I just explained why he did. He had to tell you how superior he is.

 

[Fern]

The point is to get them to answer, forcing them to take a certain stance, to which I am already prepared to counter depending on which way they go.

This isn't my first fuckin rodeo. :whiste:

Too bad their cowardice prevents them from even attempting it.

Something tells me that those questions I've just asked will NEVER be answered or even attempted without changing the subject or some other kind of deflection or straw man argument.

Well, it appears you really want the answer to the question you posed below.

Since Christians like why questions so much, I have a few. Why would a god create man sick (carnal, sinful nature), command him to be well (but wait until 2000 years ago to offer redemption and do so in a revolting way), but leave zero evidence that he even exists?

Why would he create human brains with the capacity for doubt and reason and then leave them with reason to doubt?

I'll give it a shot. This will be from long ago memory; I'm not up for any Bible study now.

First, I disagree with the little assertions of 'facts' you have sprinkled in with your question. I.e., I do not believe God created man sick - carnal with a sinful nature. But rather than haggle over such stuff I'd rather answer your (basic) question - why did God create man?

At the risk of accuracy, I'll just state it simply: God created man because he was lonely/bored. I.e., we were created for companionship/amusement.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious what you mean. I.e., what are the "first cause arguments" that the universe suffers from?

TIA

Fern

If matter can't be created or destroyed, how did it get here?

God suffers from an identical problem.

 

[ThinClient]

First, I disagree with the little assertions of 'facts' you have sprinkled in with your question. I.e., I do not believe God created man sick - carnal with a sinful nature. But rather than haggle over such stuff I'd rather your answer your (basic) question - why did God create man?

So god either created man perfect and man somehow sinned creating a paradox because a perfect man is without sin and would not be capable of sin, as per the definition of perfect -OR, god created man with a sinful nature, a carnal nature, a nature that precludes us from being without sin.

Which is it? Did god create an imperfect perfect man? Or did god create an imperfect man and command him to be perfect?

Why he created man is irrelevant to the point being made, but we can tackle that later if you like.

(also, nice deflection attempt)

At the risk of accuracy, I'll just state it simply: God created man because he was lonely/bored. I.e., we were created for companionship/amusement.

Fern

Why would a perfect god be lonely or bored? If he exists outside of time, how could he get lonely or bored, since both of those concepts require TIME to even exist in the first place?

 

[Moonbeam]

So god either created man perfect and man somehow sinned creating a paradox because a perfect man is without sin and would not be capable of sin, as per the definition of perfect -OR, god created man with a sinful nature, a carnal nature, a nature that precludes us from being without sin.

Which is it? Did god create an imperfect perfect man? Or did god create an imperfect man and command him to be perfect?

Why he created man is irrelevant to the point being made, but we can tackle that later if you like.

(also, nice deflection attempt)



Why would a perfect god be lonely or bored? If he exists outside of time, how could he get lonely or bored, since both of those concepts require TIME to even exist in the first place?

What if God creates man and man creates God as they evolve together such that the level of a man's evolution determines the God he sees.

 

[Fern]

So god either created man perfect and man somehow sinned creating a paradox because a perfect man is without sin and would not be capable of sin, as per the definition of perfect -OR, god created man with a sinful nature, a carnal nature, a nature that precludes us from being without sin.

Which is it? Did god create an imperfect perfect man? Or did god create an imperfect man and command him to be perfect?

Why he created man is irrelevant to the point being made, but we can tackle that later if you like.

(also, nice deflection attempt)

No attempt to deflect on my part, and my answer, brief as it is, still addresses your question.

God created man capable of making a decision (free will etc.). It would seem obvious God values the relationship more if freely chosen by man. So no, why he created man is not irrelevant.

Why would a perfect god be lonely or bored? If he exists outside of time, how could he get lonely or bored, since both of those concepts require TIME to even exist in the first place?

Welp, seems boring to me. Infinity is a long time. How many universes etc can one create before it gets old?

Fern

 

[Fern]

If matter can't be created or destroyed, how did it get here?

God suffers from an identical problem.

Energy is in the equation too, right?

After a quick look at conservation of mass I see the potential for some complicated answers to that problem. I leave those to others and just say God used some of his energy to create the universe, so problem solved.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Energy is in the equation too, right?

After a quick look at conservation of mass I see the potential for some complicated answers to that problem. I leave those to others and just say God used some of his energy to create the universe, so problem solved.

Fern

It isn't that people can't just make up an answer, but that is exactly what it is, a made up answer. If the universe requires a creator then god requires a creator. No way around that unless we simply declare that god doesn't have to play by the rules.

Again, I have no problem with religious people. I think their faith is wonderful. I just wish they would stop trying to make arguments about the origin of the universe.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

But rather than haggle over such stuff I'd rather answer your (basic) question - why did God create man?

At the risk of accuracy, I'll just state it simply: God created man because he was lonely/bored. I.e., we were created for companionship/amusement.

Fern

That is not what the Bible tells us.

First, ... it wasn't because he needed us: "The God who made the world and everything in it … is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25).

And he didn't make us because he was lonely. Long before we were here, God already had "company" with his Son and the Holy Spirit, referred to in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image."

And he didn't make us because he needed his ego fed. It's not like God made us to satisfy some craving to be worshiped. God is totally secure in who he is—without us.

Second, despite not needing us, God chose to create us anyway, out of his great love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3). Yes, God loved us before he even created us. It's impossible to get our heads around that idea, but it's true; that's what "everlasting" love means.

God is love (1 John 4:8), and because of that love and his wonderful creativity, he made us so we can enjoy all that he is and all that he's done.

Third, God created us to fulfill his eternal plan. I could write pages and pages about this, but suffice it to say that God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to make us a part of his eternal plan.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/faithdoubt/8c6013.html

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It isn't that people can't just make up an answer, but that is exactly what it is, a made up answer. If the universe requires a creator then god requires a creator. No way around that unless we simply declare that god doesn't have to play by the rules.

Again, I have no problem with religious people. I think their faith is wonderful. I just wish they would stop trying to make arguments about the origin of the universe.

God doesn't have to play by any rules that we have. He's omnipotent. His character determines what he does.

See FAQ.

 

[fskimospy]

God doesn't have to play by any rules. His character determines what he does.

See FAQ.

You're just proving my point. What is the basis for this distinction? A unilateral declaration that god doesn't have to follow the rules.

A five year old can spot the problem with that.

 

[Fern]

It isn't that people can't just make up an answer, but that is exactly what it is, a made up answer. If the universe requires a creator then god requires a creator. No way around that unless we simply declare that god doesn't have to play by the rules.
-snip-

Re:Bolded - Why?

It's a very simple statement, but one that seems burdened with unstated assumptions.

Why does God have to play by the rules, and why would those necessarily be the same rules we have? Do we even know all the rules?

Fern

 

[Fern]

That is not what the Bible tells us.

I don't see how what you quoted really contradicts my post. It's just much more 'wordy'.

(I'm feeling lazy these days and therefore deeply committed to brevity.)

Fern

 

[Pray To Jesus]

You're just proving my point. What is the basis for this distinction? A unilateral declaration that god doesn't have to follow the rules.

A five year old can spot the problem with that.

It's the definition of God.

A five year old is smarter than you because he understands that.