Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing...

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
How could anybody choose to be good? If all around you is good, and you yourself were perfectly good, and therefore incapable of bad, do you really choose to be good? But if some things around you are bad, you can choose to be good, despite the bad.

And here's another thing: so what?

You seem to think there is a **requirement** for people to "choose" one or the other, and **never** a combination of good/evil...!!!

That is ludicrously naive.

People are a mix of good and evil traits-- always have been.

(by evil, we arbitrarily define as "selfish with damaging consequences to others")

And humans would still have that option, even if the only god was all good, and there was no deliberately-created evil.

Sheesh but you are a simpleton.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
What characteristics did I give to God except the characteristic of being an non created Creator of all things with a purpose?

1) the universe may not have been created-- no need for a creator

2) what is the **purpose**? You failed to define that.

Once you do? We can show your fictitious deity is not real.

Seeker wrote:

Maybe we can't understand the purpose, but my definition says purpose.

Weasel-words. If it cannot be understood, because of magic? It doesn't exist.

If it cannot be understood due to lack of evidence? It still doesn't exist-- until the evidence is presented.

Either way? Fictional nonentity.

Seeker wrote:

Go ahead, prove it. Prove that there cannot be a non Created Creator with a purpose, whether we know what that purpose is or not.

All we need to do here?

Is show that a creator is unneeded.

We have done that, in spades.

Thus? Your imaginary creator is not only not required, but non-existent too.

*poof*

There goes your defined god.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Who or what created Zeus? And if Zeus himself was created, would he not owe his existence to something prior to him that precedes him? So Zeus makes more sense to you than a non created Creator of all things?

The old "it's turtles all the way down" gambit.

An infinite regression into the infinite past-- only the past isn't really infinite, is it?

Maybe one of your infinite-regression gods' accidentally sneezed out the universe one day, while ill?

<laughing>

Too funny-- your desperation to show your Bible-god is "real" is looking rather ludicrous.

Givemeliberty wrote:

Zeus like all gods including Yahweh/ Jesus was created by men telling stories around campfires.
<quoted text>

Yes. That **is** the way it works.

When one god falls out of favor? Another is fabricated out of the shreds of the old gods, to rise into preeminence in it's place.

The mindless, baah-ing sheeple demand it!

<laughing>

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, apparently, as I am told, he's only 16 years old, so what else could be expected? I wouldn't expect any meaningful conversation if I had to have one with me when I was 16. I knew it all. My definition is only fundamental because there is no point in discussing any specifics without discussing the basics first. If there isn't a non created Creator with a purpose that we might not know, what's the point of discussing anything that any religion specifically says?

And yet?

Your "arguments" such as they are? Are hardly better than what some bright 16 year olds have offered up in the past...

.... irony?

Yep.

Thinking wrote:

Thor makes more sense because we have evidence of thunder and lightning.
<quoted text>

Plus, Thor is cool. Thor wears chainmail, which is also cool.

Who can argue with that?

<laughing>

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
For you to be surrounded by nothing but good people would mean that all people are good and cannot be bad, including you. Therefore, nobody, including you, could choose to be bad, and therefore they cannot choose to be good as well.

So. No free will, then?

Okay. That's one "solution". Obviously, it does not fit the facts in any way, shape or form, but what can you do?

You appear to be one of those 100% or 0% types, incapable of understanding subtleties of in-between.

Shamma wrote:

<quoted text>Well here it is.
You asked for it now read the proof.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodL...

Lying Creationist Page, utterly devoid of facts, truth or even reality.

Sad.

Shamma wrote:

<quoted text>Yes we do.
And here it is.
Read it:
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodL...

Lying Creationist Page, utterly devoid of facts, truth or even reality.

Sad.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Shamma, just because they can't make RNA in a lab yet, does that prove that they never will? And what will you say then if they do? You are "painting yourself into a corner", as the expression goes.

They **can** make RNA, DNA and so forth, from scratch, in a lab.

They already did, in fact.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
False. Here on Topix, many times over, I've read and have stated that specific,**defined** gods are not only false, but provably false.

So how did I define it?

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Especially bible-god, quoran-god, etc.
And an **undefined** god? Who cares? Such deities may as well not exist-- for being **undefined** they have no interaction with humans anyhow.

So if it is not defined by human standards of definition, it cannot interact, even if it is the creator of all things?

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
If they **had** interactions? There's be.... definitions.

There's be? What does that mean?

Anyway, couldn't a software developer created a game or virtual world where all of the characters are pre programmed on how to interact with other characters and circumstances that the character could not have known about, and react according to the circumstances that it finds in the game from other characters interacting on it and this interaction between them could create other characters based on their interaction? And then, after creating this game with all of it's pre existing players which I programmed myself, and the new ones they even created, based on my formula to do so, couldn't I now go into the game after creating a character that is supposed to be me, and with basic characteristics that allow it to at least have enough of these characteristics to at least participate in the game, and then make it operate in real time joy stick decisions of mine rather than my pre programmed decisions that I gave to the rest of the characters?

What do you think the other characters are when you play a video game when you don't play against other players but play against the pre programmed players of the game itself? Don't my "real time", joystick decisions represent who I really am, rather than what I programmed into the game? And if it is my real time decisions, then isn't that me itself operating in this virtual world? I don't expect you to understand that, but I have to say it anyway for the sake of me at least offering an explanation.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
They **can** make RNA, DNA and so forth, from scratch, in a lab.
They already did, in fact.

Well I don't know anything about the RNA part, so why don't you just link it? Thanks. Don't just say it, link it. Otherwise, it's just your own personal claim. How could I know if what you represent as fact is actually fact? I talk about theories, but I don't remember representing anything that I say as fact like you just did. And if you do so, that's fine, just link the proof.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you **seriously** this willfully stupid?
Seriously????

Well then break down what is wrong with the claim. Anybody can say "Seriously????". There I just said it too. That was easy. I typed an opinion and then considered the matter done. So what does my blanket dismissal mean? Nothing, except for stating an opinion.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
So how did I define it?

As a creator. Of the universe.

That's pretty loose, but that is a testable definition.

And your god? Fails the first requirement, as the universe isn't a creation in the first place.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
So if it is not defined by human standards of definition, it cannot interact, even if it is the creator of all things?

The nature of the interaction is definable.

Once you define that interaction? It becomes possible to **test** it.

So far, in the history of humanity, all such tests are false: no godly interaction.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
So. No free will, then?

I never said there was no free will and in fact said the opposite. Did you read the rest of what I said? Obviously, based on your response, you "seem" like you didn't. Why didn't you? That's a question that I am asking myself right now, and I might even know why you didn't.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay. That's one "solution". Obviously, it does not fit the facts in any way, shape or form, but what can you do?{/QUOTE]

Could you please explain why it doesn't fit with the facts? And I never represented anything that I said as fact, only possibilities. I was asked how there could possibly be a supposed benevolent God when there is evil or bad in the world, and I presented how and why that I think that could be possible.

[QUOTE who="Bob of Quantum-Faith"]<quoted text>
You appear to be one of those 100% or 0% types, incapable of understanding subtleties of in-between.

Actually, I believe that I am quite the opposite, and if you really try to understand what I saying, you might see that.

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
There's be? What does that mean?

A typo-- you know what I mean.

Godly interaction **is** a definition or limit or set of attributes onto your idea of god.

So far? No such interactions have been observed by humans.

None.

That pretty much eliminates them, in their entirety right there.

Seeker wrote:

Anyway, couldn't a software developer ....

Not **this** lame exercise in rubbish again...

... your hypothetical software developer **is** interacting, and is therefore, a **part** of his software universe.

He is in it, as it were-- because his very imagination and creativity created it-- so he "dwells" within it's scope.

In any case? The universe isn't a software program...

Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Well I don't know anything about the RNA part, so why don't you just link it? Thanks. Don't just say it, link it. Otherwise, it's just your own personal claim. How could I know if what you represent as fact is actually fact? I talk about theories, but I don't remember representing anything that I say as fact like you just did. And if you do so, that's fine, just link the proof.

How do you think forensic DNA testing even **works**?

Google for yourself-- you will refuse to read any link I dig up.

That was your excuse for **last** time... I won't be fooled a 2nd time by your lies.