#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
I'm a Theist but enjoy atheist magical nothing monster. Is that wrong?
Yes
Side Score: 48
|
No
Side Score: 41
|
|
1
point
• Democrats support no restriction abortions! • ...but her emails! • Hogwash! • Jesus love you...you're going to burn in hell! • You fools! • You spew lies and deception as always! • Anti-Christian bigots! • Republicans can do no wrong! • Democrats can do no right! • I masturbate to Donald Trump! -FromWithin --------------------------------------- • I'm the ultimate troll! • Check out how I trolled so-in-so! • Aren't I cool for having no life. • I live in my mom's basement. -Brontoraptor and Prodigee Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Hello bront: You WISH you had the freedom to "enjoy" non Christian thinking, but you CAN'T, because if you did, you WOULDN'T be a Christian.. You guys are ROPED in. If you take ANY other path besides Christian doctrine, you go to hell.. You better HOPE God didn't read your post... excon Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
If you take ANY other path besides Christian doctrine, you go to hell Side: No
1
point
but you CAN'T, because if you did, you WOULDN'T be a Christian.. https://www.facebook.com/ Side: No
Well...in a way I guess it is true, but if you don't believe in the Christian God, what good does a Christian Hell do for you? Nothing really. Many religions believe in a purgatory, others believe that a less than honorable death is a true death...BUT there is a difference between free thinking and sin. Side: Yes
|
1
point
1
point
Your God is just as magical as the Nothing monster Not really. Nothing doing something is magic. A programmer doing as he will with His simulation has nothing to do with magic. You need a natural answer, and have...none. Come on goodlistener. Give up the goodies. Show us a nothing giving us a something. Give us a presentation. I'm interested in seeing it. What magic nothing products do you need? I'll provide them. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
If god created the universe, what created god? He wasn't created. He created time, being born, etc. It's all abstract thought to Him. The programmer doesn't reside by the laws of His created program. If god always has been and has no beginning, why can’t this be said of the universe? Because the universe is a physical thing. That's why it can be warped, shaped, bent, etc. Side: Yes
the universe is a physical thing I’m assuming it is your view that god is not. The laws of this universe are such that we have reason to believe matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So we have reason to believe this material universe has no creator, but rather has always been. A non-material thing creating a material thing is almost the same as something coming from nothing. We have nothing to indicate that it ever happens. The programmer doesn't reside by the laws of His created program It is only by the rules of the program that we can derive any knowledge of anything. To assume the existence of anything external to the known program is to assume without basis. Furthermore, it is the causal nature of the program that compels one to seek an initial cause, which means the rules of the program cause you to assume something does not abide by the rules of the program. A simpler explanation is that we just don’t understand the rules of the program. In your view we understand neither the rules of the program nor the nature of that which is beyond the program (god). Side: Yes
@Amarel I agree with all of that except this: So we have reason to believe this material universe... has always been. I do not find this to be logical, because this STILL does not answer HOW the universe exists, and suggests that it doesn't need a cause or explanation. Saying that the material universe has always existed is the same thing as the God causality paradox. Side: Yes
If it is the case that the universe is uncaused, this does not suggest that no explanation is needed, only that a cause is not part of that explanation. This differs from the god causality paradox in that it extends the regress no further back than what is known. To propose that god created the universe is functionally equivalent to proposing that god was created by a different god who was created...so on and so forth back 7 times. The 7th god back has always existed. The is functionally the same because it extends the regress further than what is reasonable by going beyond what there is evidence for. Side: Yes
1
point
Furthermore, it is the causal nature of the program that compels one to seek an initial cause, which means the rules of the program cause you to assume something does not abide by the rules of the program A program needs a programmer. To assume a program can magically leap into dna, the fabric of space, the human brain, and manifest a medium constructed of all of those and more, that could then manifest a reality such as ours, would in and of itself take a certain amount of imagination and faith. Side: Yes
A program needs a programmer This too is an assumption. It makes sense that the programs we create to mimic reality, mimic reality themselves. Furthermore, superstring is not yet testable, making it more philosophy than science. Nonetheless, superstring was derived mathematically in pursuit of the fundamental order of the universe. Who should be surprised that mathematical order was discovered? The Pythagoreans were mystics too. Side: No
1
point
1
point
It makes sense that the programs we create to mimic reality, mimic reality themselves This too is an assumption. The logic of this argument insinuates that a plane is designed after a bird, without ever having observed a bird. We created computer programs prior to the discoveries of James Gates, so to have mimicked a phenomenon such as this, meaning dual block self error correcting code invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940s, without having ever seen it... is impossible. Side: Yes
If the inventor of the airplane had never witnessed anything that flew, the existence of lift as it interacts with certain shapes would still exist, both in planes and birds. Two different people independently came to understand calculus without having confirmed with each other. Principles persist in the universe, which is why my assumption is reasonable. Side: No
1
point
Two different people independently came to understand calculus without having confirmed with each other Calculus is an observable and generally objective discovery, like "discovering" fire or "discovering" wind. Self error correcting code is a specified pattern of data thats' pattern and abilities had to be invented. It could have been created using different patterns, different intervals, etc. Shannon chose the random patterns. For the universe to use the exact same binary code to get the exact same result is impossible without a guiding hand. It's like me and another person somehow using my exact social security number, my exact yahoo password, my exact creatdebate password, my exact burglar alarm code, my exact thesis word for word in college, my exact names for all of my pets, having my exact same name, looking just like me, etc etc etc and then claiming it's a coincidence. Side: Yes
It’s not as though your scientist found a quantum binary code for “Call of Duty”. There’s nothing exact about it. Taoists have been viewing the universe in binary for centuries. Tell me, is there a way other than binary code to make a computer program? Can you tell me why mathematical order being discovered in a theory that is mathematically derived implies god any more than the mathematical order of the Pythagorean Theorum? Side: No
1
point
Can you tell me why mathematical order being discovered in a theory that is mathematically derived implies god It would imply order rather than the chaos presented by militant atheists. It proves nothing definitively, but does destroy the "all we have is chaos" narrative. Side: Yes
It would imply order rather than the chaos presented by militant atheists Well the passivist atheists have a narrative that includes chaos and order inherent in the structure of the undersigned universe which holds that without natural order, science would be impossible right along with life. Discovering order doesn’t do anything for their narrative. Side: No
1
point
Tell me, is there a way other than binary code to make a computer program Theoretically, yes, but it's like asking if counting can be done without math. Theoretically there might be a way, but figuring it out would be a mind salad. To put it simply, the type of program that filters trillions of bits of information in an airliner to keep the plane adjusted for wind, turbulence, altitude, speed, tilt, etc is being used by the universe, according to Gates. In this case, it's not that it's binary code that is amazing, because that wouldn't be amazing. It's that it is a specific and complex type of binary code that is used to correct "errors" in a transmission. Example? When you send an email, your computer does things you cannot see to insure the full message arrives as you intended, fully in tact. And if it didn't, your message would arrive as gibberish. The same with any file, picture, etc. It has to recalculate for certain variables/problems that are infinitely numerous, standing in the way of your message making it to the sender. The point? The universe is constantly making calculated adjustments in binary dual self error correcting computer code. Whether this is done by God or anything else is fantastically mind boggling. Side: Yes
I’m glad you see that a binary pattern would not be too astounding by itself. I would like to see this guys peer reviewed paper. There is still the issue that string theory is derived entirely mathematically, meaning we cannot observe it. And the result is that there is great variation in the various string models with no physical confirmation of any. It also means that a complex binary mathematical structure found at the root of string equations may just be the nature of math, but not the nature of physics. Side: Yes
1
point
the universe is a physical thing I’m assuming it is your view that god is not At least not in the sense that we define "physical". I compare it to a "Sim" thinking that everything must consist of binary computer code, when the creator of the Sims doesn't consist of binary computer code, necessarily. Side: Yes
It would be unreasonable for a sim to assume a non-binary world. Furthermore, the creator of the Sims has a creator. It is unreasonable to assume an uncaused god ends the infinite regress problem better than an uncaused universe. There’s direct evidence of the universe. Any notions would be baseless. If the universe is everything that is, then god is not excluded. Side: No
1
point
It is unreasonable to assume an uncaused god ends the infinite regress problem better than an uncaused universe. It would end it for our reality. Beyond that we need no "reason for the reason. We just need the reason, seeing that said "reason" must exist because we exist. For all we know, an "infinite regress" is abstract and meaningless to the creator. But in a completely naturalistic theory, the answer must be naturalistic, which causes an infinite regress of causes in a purely "naturalistic reality". Side: Yes
But in a completely naturalistic theory, the answer must be naturalistic If it is the nature of the universe that it has always existed, than a correct naturalistic theory will account for this. If it is the nature of the universe that is was created, a correct naturalistic theory will account for this. Your argument implies that the universe being created by god would be unnatural. It wouldn’t. Side: No
1
point
If it is the nature of the universe that it has always existed, than a correct naturalistic theory will account for this The Big Bang pretty much kills the "it always existed" theory. Fred Hoyle, an Atheist scientist who coined the term "big bang", became a theist because of the evidence and the mathematics needed to get said "bang" and our universe. Side: Yes
@Brontoraptor The Big Bang pretty much kills the "it always existed" theory. There are models consistent with the Big Bang in which the Universe (and thus time) have always existed. For example, the Cyclic Model. I would refer you to Paul Steinhardt for more information on this topic Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Your argument implies that the universe being created by god would be unnatural. It wouldn’t. It would seem "unnatural" to us. The Sims only can create in the ways allotted to them by the program that rules Sim City. Creating things in the way we create would be "unnatural" to them. To them a non-binary code composed being with unconceivable abilities popped their reality into existence. That would be "unnatural to a being made of binary code who has no definitive answer to "how" anything can exist that isn't composed of binary code, and "how" he, the programmer, can make reality "just appear". Side: Yes
1
point
To assume the existence of anything external to the known program is to assume without basis Not with no other reasonable answer, Simulation Theory, and the Fermi Paradox. By probability alone there should be thousands of inhabited planets in our galaxy alone. (The Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox) We can see way more than our galxy, yet notta.in Simulation Theory it states that if civilizations create simulated realities, and the simulated realities create simulated realities, the odds are most likely that you are in a simulated reality rather than a "real reality". Side: Yes
You misunderstood my point here. It is more than reasonable to assume there is more than what can be known. But to assume anything about what cannot be known, including the existence of anything, is a contradiction. And simulation hypothesis is little more than fun with math. It’s not a theory. Side: No
1
point
And simulation hypothesis is little more than fun with math. It’s not a theory And as theoretically possibly true as anything else. I like using infinity to prove God. Example? Is it even mathematically possible in an infinite set for a"God" to not exist? More examples? Can God not exist in an infinite "multiverse"? Can God not exist in an infinite multi demensional reality? Is it possible for God to not exist if reality's history never had an actual beginning? Side: Yes
1
point
1)But everything else could be which would still make Him God. 2)He could be the product of an abstract reality and still our creator. 3)He could also simply be the highest thing in an abstract reality where all beings and things that can exist do exist infinitely. 4)Our universe could simply be in His mind, which explains the omnipotence, omniscience, and supernatural abilities. It would also make a "naturalistic" answer obsolete. 5)He could be the hard drive that infinite possibilities derive from infinitely in a program loop. 6)Reality may be based off of something like an ever changing program loop which would explain how reality can stretch out forever. 7)And many, many more... Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
What makes you think that a God who "comes from the universe" is still not its master and/or the only consciousness to ever create worlds, realities, etc in it? And if He can manipulate time, He could historically have no known beginning and bend reality and time to His will while never allowing anyone else to ever obtain this knowledge. And if someone could become a threat, He'd just use time manipulation to prevent any such threat. Side: Yes
It’s cute that your god is a superhero, but it doesn’t change the facts of the scenario. If all possible things become realized in an infinite universe, including god, then the universe is the antecedent and god is the consequent. In which case you are still left wondering what the cause is for god and for every other possible thing presumed to become reality in an infinite universe. Side: No
1
point
If all possible things become realized in an infinite universe, including god, then the universe is the antecedent and god is the consequent 1)I don't claim this proposition. 2)But if we consider it, being caused by reality, then being the first to master time travel and immortality would give you whatever title you so wished seeing you control everything. Whether you were "good or evil" or ever "born" would be irrelevant. 3)In theory He could have been caused by reality, then manifested everything else. 4)Reality could be abstract, timeless, and nonphysical, and our reality could simply be abstract as well, meaning essentially anything that can be or can be imagined just "is". There is no actual was or will be, and God is simply the abstract king of said abstract reality. Side: Yes
1
point
I have no problem with any of the above. If I die, and that's all there is, it won't much matter at that point. If I'm right, pour the champagne and get ready to party like it's 1999. Of course there's a theoretical third option as well. In theories of parallel universes, there are infinite me's in infinite realities, throughout infinite time. If so, I'll just wait until my exacts self manifests again and live as the King of the Omega Pan Galaxy. Try to stop me. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
But seriously, we both know that what you propose is semantics. What you deem as evil, I may deem as good, or it could even be tribal. Meaning? If you're in the tribe, dear leader is "good" simply because you both are in the tribe together, like liberals or conservatives. Liberals tend to think open borders are "good" because it shows "compassion" to foreigners. Conservatives tend to think it is "wrong" because they see it as compassion towards their own people/the tribe to protect the border. Who's right? Doesn't matter. Either you agree with one tribe or you don't. Atheists like to tell us morality is not objective, and then judge God by some mythological objective version of morality, rather than just seeing God in a survival of the fittest race as "the fittest". Side: Yes
You anthropomorphize god. This view that the nature of the universe begets your god still lends primacy to the universe itself, rather than to god. If this is the god you rely on for objective morality, then you have a contradiction. Morality would merely be based on gods subjective opinion rather than yours. But this is another topic. The story of god as king in the universe has been retold over and over again and I find it exceedingly unlikely. Furthermore, I don’t find it lends itself to any one story of god over any other, making it altogether useless in choosing a belief system. Side: No
1
point
You anthropomorphize god. Not really. I don't claim God exists one way or another. I simply theorize. This view that the nature of the universe begets your god still lends primacy to the universe itself, rather than to god. Not really. If God is "God" then where He came from, if from anywhere, matters not. If this is the god you rely on for objective morality, then you have a contradiction I don't believe morality is objective, only that God's version will decide how God judges. Side: Yes
1
point
Morality would merely be based on gods subjective opinion rather than yours. I'm good with that. The story of god as king in the universe has been retold over and over again Perhaps His story has been repeatedly plagiarized, seeing that the story is old, or perhaps His story is common to others' stories because history tends to repeat itself. and I find it exceedingly unlikely. Someone can find gravity unlikely, but...you know the rest. Furthermore, I don’t find it lends itself to any one story of god over any other, making it altogether useless in choosing a belief system. Seeing that 90% of theists believe in the "God of Abraham", that's probably a clue. Hinduism is quickly being replaced by Islam, which would well fulfill the prophecy in Revelation that pits Islam vs Christianity in the final showdown of Ishmael vs Isaac. And of course Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn't claim "God". Side: Yes
1
point
I'm good with that But quite obviously you are not good with it. All you ever do is lie about people and attack them when they refuse to share your wingnut far right neo-Nazi point of view. God is peaceful and honest. Satan is aggressive and dishonest. I think you might be getting mixed up between them. Side: No
1
point
1
point
All you ever do is lie Bronto: "The new tax bill means less money will be taken from peoples' checks, and companies are handing out bonuses like candy and some have upped their minimum wage since the bill passed. Nomenclature: "Lies. Lies. Lies." Brontoraptor: AT&T;, Comcast giving $1,000 bonuses to hundreds of thousands of workers after tax bill AT&T;is paying bonuses of $1,000 to more than 200,000 U.S. employees. AT&T;'s CEO said it was in response to tax reform. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html "Beginning in 2018, we will see benefits from the tax reform ... in the form of lower corporate tax rates," CEO Brian Moynihan said in an internal memo to employees obtained by CNBC. President Donald Trump signed a bill on Friday that overhauls the U.S. tax code. Bank of America will give some of its employees a $1,000 bonus, citing the tax bill that was just signed into law. Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bancorp unveil minimum wage hikes after tax bill passage Fifth Third and AT&T;are paying employees special bonuses after getting tax cuts under the Republican tax plan. Wells Fargo said Wednesday that it would boost minimum wages for employees to $15 an hour, following Fifth Third's similar announcement. Sinclair "Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Friday it would pay a $1,000 bonus to almost 9,000 of its full-time and part-time employees after the recent passage of the GOP tax bill." Washington Federal "Seattle-based banking company Washington Federal said it would give 5?percent merit increases to all employees earning less than $100,000 annually, as well as invest in employee training and technology upgrades, and make a $5 million contribution to its main philanthropy foundation." Side: Yes
1
point
All you ever do is attack people No. Just you. when they refuse to share your wingnut far right neo-Nazi point of view. I've never met a Nazi. It makes you come off as disingenuous to act like there are "Nazis" running loose all over America when no Americans have ever even met one... God is peaceful and honest. Satan is aggressive and dishonest. I think you might be getting mixed up between them. 1)This is pointless semantics and meaningless to well...anything. 2)Provide Bible verses or examples as if this were a debate, otherwise your intellectual inferiority begins to climb further into the abyss of bullshit. 3)By your logic, conservatives in America are more peaceful, thus "more good". And Liberals in America riot, loot, burn cars, egg women, dress as vaginas while with their children, and march shouting "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" towards the cops, making them "less good"... Side: Yes
When it comes to the question of "how can you derive something from nothing?" to say that something (god) just existed with no explanation of how that thing came into existence is no better than saying the universe came from nothing. God does absolutely NOTHING address the inescapable causality paradox you run into when you ask "what initiated existence itself?" And you cannot say something like "God always existed" or that "he is beyond time and space" because that still doesn't address the issue of CAUSALITY. A God who just magically exists without a cause and has always existed is just as much of a causal paradox as something coming from nothing because EVERYTHING must be caused by SOMETHING or it is literally created out of NOTHING which means God's existence alone is meaningless as an explanation for the origin of the universe. The same thing can be applied to the big bang theory which is just as causally incoherent as God. The truth is the human race is not advanced enough to perceive the true reality of things, all of this shit is incorrect and meaningless. Side: No
1
point
And you cannot say something like "God always existed" Sure you can. He "Is". Not He "was" or "will be". Tense, time, being born, etc are abstract thoughts to Him, just like binary computer code, the Sims, and program loops are to us, despite our creating worlds from them. Side: Yes
1
point
Hi nom. Couldn't win as the original, so went to the puppet eh? Of course, we both know that you don't "work with computers, seeing that you've already professed to be a journalist. And just think. You could have had an interesting debate on God, but retreated out of fear. Too bad. Side: Yes
1
point
A God who just magically exists without a cause and has always existed is just as much of a causal paradox Our reality demands a first cause. God is the first cause in our reality. Any answer from outside of our reality is speculation because we don't know the laws of reality outside of our reality. It could be a loop or something abstract to us that is beyond comprehension. In the case of atheism a first cause is demanded, seeing it only seeks "naturalistic" answers and lacks belief in a spiritual or "other" reality. Side: Yes
Our reality demands a first cause. God is the first cause in our reality. No human knows what the first cause of our reality is and no explanation ever devised by mankind including God can overcome the paradox. If you think that "God is and always was" is a satisfactory answer then you don't even understand the nature of the problem. Any answer from outside of our reality is speculation because we don't know the laws of reality outside of our reality. That being said, God's existence is still just as problematic as anything else. It could be a loop or something abstract to us that is beyond comprehension. It IS something beyond our comprehension, because whatever it is inherently goes beyond mere physical reality. In the case of atheism a first cause is demanded, seeing it only seeks "naturalistic" answers and lacks belief in a spiritual or "other" reality. See this is where you have really fucked up. A belief in God is a BELIEF, a thing which you don't know objectively but consider to be true, but a TRULY scientific worldview lacks belief, nothing is written in stone until it is written in stone, and our models of creation are still within the realm of Theory. So some "other" level of reality is not impossible, in fact it has been talked about quite a bit in the scientific community. Science is better equipped to deal with these questions despite it's limits because it is actually trying to get to the bottom of things. Religion sets it's conclusion before hand then tries to justify that conclusion, and struggles viciously against any evidence that goes against it, where as science carefully examines the evidence at hand before reaching a conclusion and then still leaves that conclusion open for revision if necessary. Side: No
1
point
No human knows what the first cause of our reality is and no explanation ever devised by mankind can overcome the paradox. Looks like a great reason to think outside the box for an answer, rather than rejecting God "just because". If you think that "God is and always was" is a satisfactory answer then you don't even understand the nature of the problem Sure I do. His reality has no sense of time, and all things that can possibly exist do exist in a matrix/medium/mind/other, and He controls any or all of the above as the highest being in said matrix that He himself created. Side: Yes
It seems to me you are bypassing the whole question of what creates "existence" itself and viewing this physical reality as a virtual reality type construct, In which case "God" could refer to many different things, it could be anything from a spiritual entity to an advanced civilization that created us in a quantum computer simulation. Have you ever considered the possibility that this reality occurred naturally and that there is no god? There's no reason to accept God "just cause" Side: No
1
point
1
point
a thing which you don't know objectively I've got a pretty good idea. Enough to not blindly accept atheism as fact. James Gates The Beast https://www.facebook.com/ All of these things will be true in the end according to the Bible. 1)Israel exists. 2)Egypt exists still but with its former power ceasing to exist. 3)Syria exists. 4)Damascus exists and is reduced to rubble. 5)The beast system emerges. Islam literaly claims to be the beast system in its eschatology, and no one knew this outside the Muslim world until the Internet and 9/11. 6)The gospel goes worldwide, and then begins a sharp decline into secularism. 7)Homosexuality becomes normal and accepted. 8)It is depicted as all manifesting rather rapidly in sequence. God couldn't have handed it to us on a more silver platter, so it might seem. Side: Yes
Blindly accept? Remember what I said about science and religion? Religion is inherently based in blind acceptance by definition because it is based around a system of BELIEF. I am not falling for the IP trick. What's wrong with you? Are you some kind of psycho-stalker serial rapist? None of that shit you listed is that surprising either way if you think about it, a bunch of countries still exist, some suck more than they used to, blah blah blah it's only natural that the gospel would spread through the ever advancing means of communication and global connectivity with the efforts of missionaries and colonialism but eventually give way to a more scientific worldview as we learn more about the universe. It's only natural that crazy religions like Islam exist and that they correlate to the older ones they are based on. It's only natural that the same species that is crazy enough to invent their own reality then believe it is crazy enough to think penises belong in butt holes. Side: No
1
point
it's only natural that the gospel would spread through the ever advancing means of communication and global connectivity with the efforts of missionaries and colonialism 1)Thousands of religions died out or have minimal participation. 2)The gospel nearly fell to extinction directly after its inception many times. Christians were a heavily persecuted group as well. 3)People 2,000 years ago had no concept of the internet or the fast mass production of literature caused by a nonexistant printing press that hadn't been invented yet... but eventually give way to a more scientific worldview as we learn more about the universe 1)It doesn't logically follow that someone 2,000 years ago would consider this perspective, seeing they woudn't have even had a clue or any inside knowledge as to what you are talking about. For all they knew "future science" would prove them correct or the world would end prior. They couldn't magically predict what science would or wouldn't find or what the universe even was. 2)They also had no idea what the world itself was, how big it was or wasn't, or if it even had an end or beginning. Side: Yes
1
point
There actually is evidence that aliens exist, because we are made of some of the most common forms of matter in the known universe and there are trillions of planets like ours with very similar conditions so why would we be the ONLY life bearing system?To NOT believe in aliens is LUDACRIS and that's just aliens that are similar to us, nevermind all the other possibilities. The fermi paradox is irrelevant, as we can't rely on our primitive methods to accurately search for aliens across the galaxy at long distances and the accuracy of it's theoretical framework is debatable to begin with. The Fermi Paradox is also about advanced civilizations, not life in general. Nothing about the fermi paradox says that life shouldn't exist, it basically states that advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves before they become type one civilizations. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Walt Disney was a 33rd degree Freemason and an occultist. He would be guilty of Witchcraft according to the Bible. Disney is also full of homosexuals and pedophiles and they use subliminal messaging. If God is a pro Disney god he is also a pro Luciferian pro Illuminati God. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
where as science carefully examines the evidence at hand before reaching a conclusion and then still leaves that conclusion open for revision if necessary And if it concludes that we were created by someone from outside of our universe/reality years, decades, or centuries from now? Side: Yes
Then so be it. I never said there can't be a creator, just that a creator doesn't explain how existence itself was initiated and the existence of a creator is just as paradoxical as the existence of something out of nothing if you try to use it to explain the origin of existence. But if you only consider it in terms of a closed construct within an external reality and not as a question of existence in and of itself, then it has nothing to do with my original point. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
to say that something (god) just existed with no explanation of how that thing came into existence is no better than saying the universe came from nothing But no worse either, and can have many exponents, as far as theory, where atheists rarely even propose a theory of any sort. I'd actually love to hear them. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
But no worse either, and can have many exponents, as far as theory, where atheists rarely even propose a theory of any sort. I'd actually love to hear them. How about this one? The universe didn't come from nothing but has in fact always existed. Notice how I do not need to invent either a magical nothing or a magical God to explain this theory. Side: No
1
point
When it comes to the question of "how can you derive something from nothing?" to say that something (god) just existed with no explanation of how that thing came into existence All things that can exist, do exist and infinitely. Nothing truely begins or ends. God is simply the highest possible thing in said reality of infinite everythings. Side: Yes
|