- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The Bible may tell you that 'people like me', disbelievers, love sin more that life or that we try to convince ourselves of God's nonexistence to justify our actions except this in no way applies to me. You've taken something you've read from the Bible and attempted to apply it without finding out if it's actually the case.
Also in my response earlier, all I did was state widely understood facts. That wasn't my opinion trying to justify my sinful actions.
Do you never tire of repeating your insufficient argument over and over? It's clearly not convincing(in this case because it's begging the question) so why keep trying to use it and failing? I'm genuinely curious. How do you do it?
Also you clearly don't even understand what a singularity is
Your entire argument operates and hinges on the assumption that DNA is proof of us living in a programmed universe. DNA is not proof of outside programming. It can evolve into existence and has been proven to have done just that.
"Why is it so important to try to disprove God as He reveals Himself in His written word, the Bible, and in the Living Word, Jesus Christ?"
The Bible isn't God's words, it's translated interpretations, by humans, of stories that are told about him. Jesus isn't alive anymore, it says so in the Bible.
I agree there may be some creator. How could I make any such audacious claim as to declare I know something so unknowable to us yet.
"If the energy and mass is infinite that does mean god is not infinte?"
These 2 concepts don't really correlate like that. See PBS SpaceTime youtube channel for really good explanations on what I'm assuming you're trying to talk about.
"If evolution is true who creates the monkeys?"
This is basically the equivalent of saying 'if roses grow on their own then who gives birth to roses'. It's a confused question and shows a vital misunderstanding of evolution.
There have been no arguments to date that sufficiently imply that a belief in God is rational and there are many reasons to doubt that the God of Christianity exists.
It is the case that 1 religion, more than 1 religion, or no religion's claim is true. It can't be the case that the claim of more than 1 religion is true because they are contradictory. The odds that 1 religion's claim is true are about 4,200 to 1, not including religions that don't exist anymore. If there is one true religion it means that the billions of people who aren't part of that 1 religion, including members of the other 4,199, have clearly missed something huge and that's unlikely. This leaves no religions' claim being true as the most likely case by a very wide margin.
Many religions existed before Christianity. If it is the case that Christianity is true and no other religion that came before it is, then it should be expected for Christianity to differ greatly from the others and its claim shouldn't overlap with the claims of other religions but this is not the case. Christianity is very similar to other religions that came before it and its claim overlaps a great deal with other religions' claims.
Christianity claims that God is All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good. If God does exist, he watched, arms folded, for at least 100,000 years of human suffering, struggling, fighting, dying, and almost going extinct, with complete indifference. This is a direct contradiction with the aforementioned All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good claim by Christianity's own definition.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!