"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"
Moses

Burbank, CA

#439 Apr 5, 2013
janeebee wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,... AS OF YET "nothing" has never existed - if it had, it still would. Which is NOT to say "nothing" CAN NOT exist, or WILL NOT, in future.
Your ignoranc is a flag that enters every room before you and announces you.

If "nothing" CAN NOT exist and might not exist in the future, then what evidence do you have that "nothing" did not exist in the past or even now?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#440 Apr 5, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
You raise the problem of evil, ie if God is all-powerful & all-good, why does evil exist? It's an old question that pre-supposes that there is no sufficient reason for evil to exist. The answer is simple: A sufficient reason for the existence of evil is the core-existence of free-will. God created beings with free-will meaning necessarily, they can choose to do evil ( otherwise they haven't got free will!)
The question also arises from a misunderstanding of "omnipotence." It does not mean ability to make logically inconsistent things like square circles. Free-will & inability to choose to do evil is as logically inconsistent as square circles. That's why evil exists in this creation, free-will puts evil on the menu.
With free-will also comes with accountability & that is the real source of conflict between those who accept God & those who reject Him. What they really reject is accountability. All this business about science removing the need for God etc is just excuses to avoid the pain of accountability. That's why the majority of atheist posts are emotional.
Free will would be meaningless to an all-knowing god since he would know everything that every human being was going to do before they did it. Was your all-knowing, all-powerful god sitting up on his cloud thinking –“gee I wonder if Adam and Eve are going to eat the apple?”

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?--------- Epicurus 300 B.C
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#441 Apr 5, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
"At a your grade level"? You're pretty stupid, Jeff. Please don;t assume you're smarter than me. You clearly aren't.
But since you brought it up, then tell me - is the winning lottery number fine-tuned? By your definition it is, yet every one with a functioning brain knows that the lottery numbers are randomly drawn. Just because someone holds the winning ticket doesn't mean it was "designed" that way, you idiot.
Let me ask you. Is there such a thing as luck?
Moses

Burbank, CA

#442 Apr 5, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
"At a your grade level"? You're pretty stupid, Jeff. Please don;t assume you're smarter than me. You clearly aren't.
What? The obvious thing is that most would be smarter than you, based on your literary communication deficiencies.

Let's play English 101

1. "At a your grade level"?
2. "don;t"

Correct the above two grammar nightmare and call me when you wake up.
Moses

Burbank, CA

#443 Apr 5, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Explained to you MULTIPLE times, "philosopher" TWIT.
Science doesn't "prove things. It gathers evidence FOR a particular explanation (or scientific theory) and that explanation stands unless and until it is refuted by contradictory evidence.
In simple terms for an undergraduate philosopher wanna-be, science doesn't PROVE things, it can only DISprove them.
Please explain how your post was a rebuttal of his.

Exactly, science can not prove anything. It is the proof business. You think that this supports your position, but it does not.

The reason that this definiton exists is because a bunch a rambling brains called scientists realized that unlike math, they have no proof, formulas or facts, so what they set out to do is simply disprove statements and conclusions that were never proven in the first place.
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#444 Apr 5, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
I am unable to answer this question until someone actually tells me the "truth" about reality.
<quoted text>
I do have views regarding your deity. However, AFAIAC, they do not have anything to do with the matter we are disussing - The reason(s) the biblical writers felt the need to use peer pressure rather than providing overwhelming evidence in a clear, concise manner.
<quoted text>
Is this what you mean? I will assume it is.
"In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_l...
"A physical law or scientific law is, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
I didn't ask for a description of the law, I asked why it exists & how it came into existence. I'd be most obliged if you could answer this.

The law existed before the repeated experiments / observations that you describe, how did it come to exist before there were scientists?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#445 Apr 5, 2013
Moses wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how your post was a rebuttal of his.
Exactly, science can not prove anything. It is the proof business. You think that this supports your position, but it does not.
The reason that this definiton exists is because a bunch a rambling brains called scientists realized that unlike math, they have no proof, formulas or facts, so what they set out to do is simply disprove statements and conclusions that were never proven in the first place.
so there is no proof for the scientific theory of gravity, or relativity or big bang or evolution?... really... how long you been the village idiot?... were your parents brother and sister?
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#446 Apr 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Free will would be meaningless to an all-knowing god since he would know everything that every human being was going to do before they did it. Was your all-knowing, all-powerful god sitting up on his cloud thinking –“gee I wonder if Adam and Eve are going to eat the apple?”
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?--------- Epicurus 300 B.C
I'm glad you brought up the objection that if God knows what people are going to do, then people have no free-will. What you've done is confuse knowledge for causation. Just because one knows what "x" is going to do, it doesn't mean one caused x's choice. The best analogy is a watching a re-run (DVD) of your favourite football match. You know what's going to happen, right? Did you cause any part of the match?

Google now claim from all the data they've gathered on us, they can predict with 90% accuracy what we are going to do on Tuesday. Now you don't of course believe that google 90% cause us to do whatever it is we do on the next Tuesday. Surely not! And of course you believe that you freely choose to do whatever it is you do on a Tuesday.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#447 Apr 5, 2013
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#448 Apr 5, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for a description of the law, I asked why it exists & how it came into existence. I'd be most obliged if you could answer this.
The law existed before the repeated experiments / observations that you describe, how did it come to exist before there were scientists?
Explained already. There is no "law" except in human minds. We see a large body attracting another and we say "Law of Gravity." There is no apparent reason why it HAS to act that way, We just observe hat it does.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#449 Apr 5, 2013
Moses wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how your post was a rebuttal of his.
Exactly, science can not prove anything. It is the proof business. You think that this supports your position, but it does not.
The reason that this definiton exists is because a bunch a rambling brains called scientists realized that unlike math, they have no proof, formulas or facts, so what they set out to do is simply disprove statements and conclusions that were never proven in the first place.
Perhaps cutting things finely is a bit beyond your aptitude level.

Religion and philosophy claim absolute knowledge (but cannot prove it).

Science does NOT claim that evolution is absolute knowledge (for example) but the best working example we have at the moment, subject to rebuttal or to new and better information.

And yet evolution has stood WITHOUT rebuttal for 150 years and is the back bone of the modern life sciences, so ti could be CONSIDERED a "proven fact," if science were actually in the proof business, but they aren't.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science explains things as best it can, subject to new and better knowledge.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#450 Apr 5, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps cutting things finely is a bit beyond your aptitude level.
Religion and philosophy claim absolute knowledge (but cannot prove it).
Science does NOT claim that evolution is absolute knowledge (for example) but the best working example we have at the moment, subject to rebuttal or to new and better information.
And yet evolution has stood WITHOUT rebuttal for 150 years and is the back bone of the modern life sciences, so ti could be CONSIDERED a "proven fact," if science were actually in the proof business, but they aren't.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science explains things as best it can, subject to new and better knowledge.
Big Bang was proved by NASA a few years ago....they are very much in the proof business

Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to Two U.S. Cosmologists
Aalok Mehta
National Geographic News
October 3, 2006
U.S. scientists John C. Mather and George F. Smoot today won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for their research helping to solidify the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.

Mather, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Smoot, from the University of California, Berkeley, will each receive half of the prize, worth 10 million Swedish kronor (1.4 million U.S. dollars), for their groundbreaking studies of cosmic background radiation.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#451 Apr 5, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
"At a your grade level"? You're pretty stupid, Jeff. Please don;t assume you're smarter than me. You clearly aren't.
But since you brought it up, then tell me - is the winning lottery number fine-tuned? By your definition it is, yet every one with a functioning brain knows that the lottery numbers are randomly drawn. Just because someone holds the winning ticket doesn't mean it was "designed" that way, you idiot.
Jeff's 'fine tuning' argument is technically known as the 'Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy'.

Carrying Jeff's argument to it's logical conclusion, the universe was fine-tuned from the beginning such that someone would call himself Jeff and continually return to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy like a dog to its vomit.

I will not expand upon this to include the position of Jeff's head relative to the rest of his anatomy.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#452 Apr 5, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you brought up the objection that if God knows what people are going to do, then people have no free-will. What you've done is confuse knowledge for causation. Just because one knows what "x" is going to do, it doesn't mean one caused x's choice. The best analogy is a watching a re-run (DVD) of your favourite football match. You know what's going to happen, right? Did you cause any part of the match?
Google now claim from all the data they've gathered on us, they can predict with 90% accuracy what we are going to do on Tuesday. Now you don't of course believe that google 90% cause us to do whatever it is we do on the next Tuesday. Surely not! And of course you believe that you freely choose to do whatever it is you do on a Tuesday.
Although the argument (theological fatalism) that if "God" already knows what you are going to do you have no choice but to act in accordance with what god already knows is valid, I didn’t say that. I said free will would be meaningless to an all-knowing "God". If your all-powerful, all-knowing "God" created Adam and Eve knowing that they would introduce sin into the world then your "God" is at fault for introducing sin into the world because Adam and Eve were not allowed to choose whether or not to be created. It was the will of your all-powerful all-knowing "God" that they be created in spite of the fact that "He" knew they would sin.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#454 Apr 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Although the argument (theological fatalism) that if "God" already knows what you are going to do you have no choice but to act in accordance with what god already knows is valid, I didn’t say that. I said free will would be meaningless to an all-knowing "God". If your all-powerful, all-knowing "God" created Adam and Eve knowing that they would introduce sin into the world then your "God" is at fault for introducing sin into the world because Adam and Eve were not allowed to choose whether or not to be created. It was the will of your all-powerful all-knowing "God" that they be created in spite of the fact that "He" knew they would sin.
Yeap, I can just see God up there scratching his male pattern balding head wondering if a three day old naked lady is going to be outsmarted by a fallen prince of heaven.
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#455 Apr 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Although the argument (theological fatalism) that if "God" already knows what you are going to do you have no choice but to act in accordance with what god already knows is valid, I didn’t say that. I said free will would be meaningless to an all-knowing "God". If your all-powerful, all-knowing "God" created Adam and Eve knowing that they would introduce sin into the world then your "God" is at fault for introducing sin into the world because Adam and Eve were not allowed to choose whether or not to be created. It was the will of your all-powerful all-knowing "God" that they be created in spite of the fact that "He" knew they would sin.
Why & how is it meaningless to God that he knows how people will act?

You say God is at fault for sin in the world. OK. Who is He at fault to? You are only at fault to another person so I'm interested to know to whom you think God is answerable for the charge you make.

I see you say Adam & Eve were not allowed to choose whether or not to be created. What I'm confused about is how God could have given them a choice before they existed. As I understand it, in order to make a choice you've got to exist 1st. Adam & Eve didn't exist before they were created so they could choose if to be created, I think you need to explain how you expect them to have made that choice when they didn't exist. Please clarify.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#456 Apr 5, 2013
angelfromhell1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Big Bang was proved by NASA a few years ago....they are very much in the proof business
Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to Two U.S. Cosmologists
Aalok Mehta
National Geographic News
October 3, 2006
U.S. scientists John C. Mather and George F. Smoot today won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for their research helping to solidify the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Mather, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Smoot, from the University of California, Berkeley, will each receive half of the prize, worth 10 million Swedish kronor (1.4 million U.S. dollars), for their groundbreaking studies of cosmic background radiation.
Why do you think "helping to solidify" equals "prove"?

Newton's Law (or Theory) of Gravity isn't "proven." It helps us do a lot of things, including steering spacecraft to Jupiter and Saturn, but it turns out that it breaks down and does not work in the vicinity of black holes.

That's why science doesn't say it "proves" things. Because sooner or later some new knowledge comes around which expands or completely turns around the old knowledge.
spandexxx

Rijswijk, Netherlands

#459 Apr 5, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Why & how is it meaningless to God that he knows how people will act?
You say God is at fault for sin in the world. OK. Who is He at fault to? You are only at fault to another person so I'm interested to know to whom you think God is answerable for the charge you make.
I see you say Adam & Eve were not allowed to choose whether or not to be created. What I'm confused about is how God could have given them a choice before they existed. As I understand it, in order to make a choice you've got to exist 1st. Adam & Eve didn't exist before they were created so they could choose if to be created, I think you need to explain how you expect them to have made that choice when they didn't exist. Please clarify.
The problem with an alpowerful,al knowing and perfect god is actually this...why would a god like that make humans?What could humans possibly contribute to a god like that?
Humans would be far less to god then single-celled organisms compaired to humans....would you want a personal relationship with a single-celled organism?Would a single-celled organism be able to have a persona relationship with humans?Áre humans not completly pointless and without purpose/goal if a god like that would exist?If not then what is the purpose and goal of man...can you think up an actually good reason without using the "only god knows" awnser?

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#461 Apr 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"...[W]hoever says,'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." Matthew 5:22
So, God is going to Hell. Nice one.
No, makes the rules for us, not for Him. After all, He created Hell, not us.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#462 Apr 5, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU called him a fool,
No, God did. He doesn't answer to you. You answer to Him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
False christs 49 min Ethan 1
Wrestle Against Spiritual Evil from a Position ... 12 hr AlertChristians 1
A Monologue of Destruction to the Sex Demons In... Mon AlertChristians 1
Demons Supernaturally Interact with the Physica... Mon AlertChristians 1
I Knew Six Men Who Were Cannibals - Relatives &... Sun AlertChristians 1
A Relative, Conservation Officer was One of the... Sun AlertChristians 1
Consciousness to be awake Jan 14 ROG 15
More from around the web