Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[tumbleweed41]

I love this argument.

It's kinda like the "your disbelief in god proves he exists, because you can't disbelieve in something if it doesn't actually exist"

By both of these arguments the following things are real:

Clean fresh smelling hippies


-Q

Hey now!!!!:sad:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Seems like it but it aint. An infinite God can not have a "starting point" to define Him

But you said all things MUST have a starting point. Something CANNOT come from NOTHING.
But you changed the rules for God. By that reasoning, one can claim the universe is infinite, has always been, and needs no starting point.
This is where your logic fails you.

There is no logic in your limiting of an omnipotent being. You cannot claim omnipotency then claim to limit this being by saying "if he told us, he would no longer be all powerful."

I didnt say that i said if He said He had a beginning then that would say that there is some even more supreme than Him

Actually, you did...

All He tells us is that He was always there. Think about it, if He told us where He came from then He wouldnt be the Supreme Being.

Thus limiting the omnipotency of your "Supreme Being" and failing in your logic.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No Good analogy. That singularity is a beginning and if that is all we know right now then that "singularity" would be Jesus.

If the singularity represents Jesus, then what came before is unknown, undefinable, and completely outside the realm of the universe (Jesus), and having no further effect within the universe.

So much for omnipotence.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I need prove nothing, the ball is in your corner not mine.

All these things that people have or do believe are made real by your argument. The fact that you believe that your god is the only god is in direct opposition with your theory considering no one can prove the non-existence of any of the other gods that man kind has come up with.

Archer could you please explain this fault in your logic.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hey now!!!!:sad:

Hehehehehehe

 

[McBell]

First define what God is....

He won't do it.
The reason?
He honestly fears that his god will be disproven.

then you can go through the puerile motions of being disproved

Thus the reason Archer flinches each time he is asked to define god.
He actually fears for his god.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Nope I just put this thread up to mess with people. I will put it this way, I say my God is real, you say no (-) he is not, I say disprove him, you try (-). HMMM -+-=+

By trying to disprove a negative you make a positive. Threads like this just prove the Existence of the Divine. Really why would one attempt to disprove what they say is not there? There is something, some just choose not to see.

I see, so now you're trying to use mathematics to show that because any attempt of disproving god will lead to proving god. That's no longer a debate, it's now just associating positive and negative values to this debate in a way that gives you a very nice and unique strawman. But let's play your game.

You say god is real (+) yet when asked to show evidence of god, you have nothing (-). You ask us to disprove god (-) yet you fail at providing a usable definition (-) for god yet you still believe in him (+). Now it's a +---+. I can keep going with this and adding in a - or a + but the bottom line is that it's completely pointless because you can do the exact same thing. The only usefulness of this debate tactic is that it enables you do provide an argument without confronting the arguments we provide.

Or are all the people that say there is no God a little messed up? I mean really, why would one try to disprove what is not there? Illogical, unless they know it is there.

The problem with this is the thing you're referring to (god) you yourself are unable to define! Hence, you're believing in something you have no clue what it is and apparently that's normal yet for those who may be able to define it and then formulate their opinion aren't normal? Seems a bit backward to me. Supposing those who disbelieve in it are unable to define god yet still have their belief. If you're to call them not normal, then you're also not normal.

 

[MSizer]

I went to a theology presentation last night by a catholic scholar. I was dumbfounded by his claim. He basically said that earth and heaven are separate, and that since we can't see heaven or things associated to it, it's futile to argue using earthly knowledge and reason on behalf of heaven. He said the reason the "new atheists'" anti-theology arguments are so strong is that their claims are earthly, which can be argued by earthly means, while heavenly phenomenon are simply not earthly, therefore earthly arguments fail to do them justice. I was absolutely beside myself. So this guy in a nutshell admits he can't win a debate for theology, but he has an excuse as to why that's ok. I was blown away. His name was Peter Erb. He went on to say that since heavenly matters seem to fail when defended by earthly arguments, it actually promotes atheism since it give the illusion that claims about the divine and heaven are false. Wow. Now that's rhetoric at its best, I'll give him that.

 

[cottage]

Everything I see manifest in the universe speaks to me of a Supreme Intelligence. You don't see what I see for the reason I spoke to above.

For example if I point to a pencil and claim that there is intelligence behind it's construction you will no doubt agree because the trace of human intelligence is so obviously visible to us both. It took intelligence to design a machine to carve out millions of identical pencils from wood. We can understand how such a simple thing as a pencil cannot just manifest on it's own from the truck of a tree.

However if I point to a tree with it's highly organized growth pattern from a tiny seed to a fully grown 100ft' tall tree you and say there is intelligence behind it's formation then the baffaled atheist will proclaim that there is no intelligence guiding the process and that it is just a chance happening.

What nonsensical and inconsistent thinking to come to such a conclusion. The evidence for God is all around you. You don't see it because you eyes are closed.

I respect your right to close your eyes but I can only say it's a much brighter view when they are open.

It is neither nonsensical nor inconsistent. You are referring to two different things here. I don’t know who the ‘baffled’ atheist is, but I most atheists I know certainly do not explain nature as having arisen by chance, but by natural selection, which is the very opposite.
The argument from design concludes more for the cause than is necessary for the effect. And if you want to infer the existence of a Designing Deity from instances of human contrivance, then by the same argument it is implied that the Deity has human qualities, when a Supreme Being by definition is totally other. You see God all around you because that is the way you wish to understand the world. But in fact there is nothing in the material world that enables us to see beyond it. If such a thing were possible we wouldn’t have what we’ve just been discussing: the Teleological Argument!

 

[Archer]

He won't do it.
He actually fears for his god.

Thank you! We are to fear his wrath.

 

[Autodidact]

Well how can I be convinced that something I believe in, yet can not see, only feel, if no one can see it, but many also feel it and describe it the way I do?

I don't know, but we do have medication for that.

 

[Myers]

Well how can I be convinced that something I believe in, yet can not see, only feel, if no one can see it, but many also feel it and describe it the way I do?

That can be explained by the power of suggestion.

 

[challupa]

Thank you! We are to fear his wrath.

This saddens me...:sad: It can't be good for the human psyche to actually believe this is true.

 

[Archer]

AHHHH!! the fear is not of a slave to a master but a child to a parent

Not of being beaten but fear of disappointing.

 

[challupa]

AHHHH!! the fear is not of a slave to a master but a child to a parent

Not of being beaten but fear of disappointing.

Okay, but still, is that a good thing? I don't want my children to fear disappointing me. I want them to be the best they can be, for themselves not me. Imo fear of anything restricts the creativity of the individual. I don't believe god would want to limit us or to fear. That just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Archer]

Okay, but still, is that a good thing? I don't want my children to fear disappointing me. I want them to be the best they can be, for themselves not me. Imo fear of anything restricts the creativity of the individual. I don't believe god would want to limit us or to fear. That just doesn't seem right to me.

There again it is about perception!! Fear not as in trembling, fear as in forgetting a loved ones birthday.

 

[challupa]

There again it is about perception!! Fear not as in trembling, fear as in forgetting a loved ones birthday.

Alright, but even forgetting someone's birthday can have various levels of fear depending on the circumstances. If I forget my husband's birthday and he is known for beating me for forgetting, my fear level is going to be real high. If on the other hand my husband doesn't care if I forget his birthday, by fear level will be low or non existent. So what level do you fear god at?

 

[Myers]

fear as in forgetting a loved ones birthday.

People fear that?

 

[Archer]

Alright, but even forgetting someone's birthday can have various levels of fear depending on the circumstances. If I forget my husband's birthday and he is known for beating me for forgetting, my fear level is going to be real high. If on the other hand my husband doesn't care if I forget his birthday, by fear level will be low or non existent. So what level do you fear god at?

It is dependent on the situation I do not fear I will be stricken down. My fears are based on my life experiences, there have been times when I have had repercussions to things that can only be explained as Divine guidance. I have received blessings that also can not be explained.

 

[Archer]

People fear that?

It is an internal fear. A fear that one will not feel your expressions of love.