Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Hedonist]

I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
It's only impossible in your imagination.
...

So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.

[Aura Mytha]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, I'm already excited at the thought of you two doing it as a duet.

Duet ? or duel? Because duel is just my game.:)
We could do a diet though or duet ? or even

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Hedonist]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Think if it as the multiverse theories. There are an infinite number if things you can do every day. You decide which ones you're going to do, not God. He knows what you're going to do but isn't being your "puppet master". You're your own master.

No, if he's all powerful and all knowing then he would know ever variation of every decision I would make before I was even created, so he could not help but create me to follow a certain path.

(Why "he" anyway? Circumcised?)

[Tide with Beach]

Clementia wrote:

What the.......banana cakes are u on about?
I was gonna smash the Rubik's....oh never mind!

Come closer and I'll tell you...

...closer...

<whisper> I'm not wearing any panties!

[polymath257]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.

So much wrong is such a short sentence.

First, causality depends on the notion of time and time is part of the universe. So either time is infinite into the past, allowing for an infinite string of causality, or time is finite into the past and causality is meaningless for the 'first' event. Either way, talking about a cause for the universe as a whole is problematic, to say the least.

Second, we know of uncaused events in our own universe, so the assumption that everything needs to be caused is already known to be wrong. What argument do you have that the universe was, in fact, caused?

Third, even if causality is an aspect here, there is no reason there needs to be a *single* cause for the whole universe, as opposed to multiple causes (which tends to be the case for most things in the universe). Why not say the universe was caused by a committee?

Fourth, even if there is a single cause for the universe, the identification of this cause with 'God' is problematic, to say the least. You see, simply having a cause does not imply an intelligence, consciousness, morality, or even ownership.

Fifth, unlike your avoidance of the issue, YOUR claims make the positive existence statement, so are the ones with the burden of proof. WE do not have to show them wrong; YOU have to show them correct.

[KJV]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>So an eternal intelligence is required to create humans but was not itself created makes more sense to you than an eternal universe?

(which may or may not be cyclic ... or the "expansion" we perceive could just be a local phenomenon that goes beyond the range of our sensors ... or countless other natural explanations which may at least be testable at some point).

The creator "God" has not deemed us worthy of much information outside of our Universe. We can't even handle the information he has given us.

Hedonist:

What if God had created a parallel universe for each choice we make. so every scenario is played out in everyone's life. Maybe in addition to one life lived out and every possibility alternative is played out, maybe we live everyone's life that ever lived in all possible scenario with that life. Then God would have very good data to judge each soul on.

We just don't know what God has kept from us.

[KJV]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>At least you are willing to ask questions! That is a far cry better than most theists we experience on here.

Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

"Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov -- "

I robot

[KittenKoder]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you assume that?

Assume what? I made no assumptions, so you'll have to be specific in what part you are unclear.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
That's incorrect KK you know we have evidence you have ruled it out for you and only you. The evidence is still here.

Evidence is the same for everyone, what you are probably calling evidence is not the same for everyone therefore it is not evidence. Unless you have evidence you have no presented.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
A star is a massive, luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity.
For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium are created by stars, either via stellar nucleosynthesis during their lifetimes or by supernova nucleosynthesis when very massive stars explode.

Yes, I just left out the details since they weren't looking for actual answers, just bumper sticker one liners.

[Eagle12]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have supernatural eyes? Is there some way you interpret reality that should be taken more seriously than the many, often contradictory ways, that other religious believers interpret reality?
Do you really understand a reluctance to accept ideas without evidence? Do you understand rational skepticism?
<quoted text>
Atheists lack a belief in deities.
What is good about religious faith? Isn't faith just committed gullibility?
<quoted text>
You don't hate us? Was that on the table? Mentioning it at all is telling.
Have you ever considered the possibility that your god doesn't reveal himself because he doesn't exist?
<quoted text>
You believe this because it was written down by people who probably believed it too? Are you willing to accept all written claims by people who believed what they wrote?
<quoted text>
The waiting game for the "end times" is perpetual. It's a cheap trick. The Bible is full of cheap tricks.
If you had valid truth claims, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate them to rational skeptics. Anyone who can evaluate claims consistently, would not be able to accept only the Christian claims. They would have to accept all claims, including alien claims, ghost claims, Sasquatch claims, and claims that haven't been thought of yet.

Thank you for your comments. There was a time early in my life when my belief in God was pure faith. Since that time I have gone beyond faith.

I know God is real. The proof is my own personal experiences. There’s no need to share these experiences. Because nothing I can say will persuade you and others.

I’m 100% sure in God’s existence.. I searched for God as a young man and found that he is not a fairy tale. But indeed God is as real as you or I. And so we are at a impasse. I can’t persuade you and you can’t persuade me.

[KJV]

Thinking wrote:

<quoted text>More lo-cal lo-IQ.[sic]

Hey Tinkles.

So you're an IQ judge now?

[KJV]

christianity is EVIL wrote:

<quoted text>wrong
IF god created ALL he created your future and youre just like a preprogramed robot doing what he designed you to do

no free will

This ones got there blinders on nice and tights. Lol

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
The creator "God" has not deemed us worthy of much information outside of our Universe. We can't even handle the information he has given us.
Hedonist:
What if God had created a parallel universe for each choice we make. so every scenario is played out in everyone's life. Maybe in addition to one life lived out and every possibility alternative is played out, maybe we live everyone's life that ever lived in all possible scenario with that life. Then God would have very good data to judge each soul on.
We just don't know what God has kept from us.

Lame excuse for not wanting to do the work of advancing our understanding.

[KJV]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>I said: "An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination." To which you replied -

So, can you really imagine an entity that can make an object so big even this entity can't move it? Paradoxically impossible.

"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."

And why is this? Because it's your rules?

FYI there is an all powerful entity.

[Hedonist]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". The word does not appear in any popular dictionary, but is a technical term used more in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred.
God's perfection is Goodness working in and through all those that are His.

How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.

Well, since you cannot provide evidence there is one, then you are delusional to assert it is fact.

However, the paradox is best explained with a single question:

Could an all powerful entity create a rock it could not lift?

[Hedonist]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
...The basic premise of that is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist; this first cause must be God.
Unless you or anyone else can prove otherwise, you're simply stating your opinion, not fact.

You're mixing you cosmological arguments, but whatever.

The "first cause" argument when stated more completely is "everything that began to exist was caused to exist."

But the unspoken premise here is "everything but God began to exist".

This is a premise without foundation and creates a "begging the question" fallacy that puts "God" in the premise of the argument which is supposed to prove God. All you are actually saying is "God exist because God exist". A rather lame fallacy argument.

Try again?

[Hedonist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"An all-powerful entity is paradoxically impossible, both in reality and even in one's imagination."
And why is this? Because it's your rules?
FYI there is an all powerful entity.

Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.

[Hedonist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov -- "
I robot

That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?

And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.