CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
No, I am a figment of the imaginations of people who want a convenient explanation for things they do not understand, a refuge from uncertainty, and an authority figure who will never show up to actually enforce the "Rules".
I disagree. I think that in light of recent evidence discovered by science, Catholics actually have the more logical basis for faith, while (rather ironically) atheism requires a greater leap of faith and ignorance of facts than faith itself.
I think that in light of recent evidence discovered by science,
What evidence?
Evidence of what, exactly?
...while (rather ironically) atheism requires a greater leap of faith and ignorance of facts than faith itself.
I think you are clearly correct that those who positively assert that god does not exist are taking an unjustified leap of faith.
By the same token, whether it is a greater leap (as opposed to an equal leap) than the one undertaken by devotees of any religion would depend on the evidence (including the evidence you alluded to earlier.)
+++++++++++++++++++
Frankly, a lot of it may boil down to what is the definition of god.
Most often, when I ask people what they mean by god (because it is by no means clear in most cases), the answer I get is along the lines of
- Not constructed of matter or energy
- Made the universe
- Controls/sets limits on the universe
Now, that is a pretty loose definition.
In accordance with the definition, the laws of physics could be god. In that case, proving god exists is so easy as to be almost unnecessary-just bring up Isaac Newton and go on about your day.
Well... I'm going to start with a definition of God.
If you Google "define god" it says "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being"
I would like to add that God has infinite power, has an identity and free will, and is not bound by the laws of physics and dimensions that he himself created. That's what makes God different from the laws of physics. In fact, God created the laws of physics, since they govern the universe, which God created
As for your question about evidence, we are currently discussing how the Big Bang came about if there was no time beforehand. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
I want to point out the significance of the term definition. Were god a thing with observed properties based on direct interaction, something for which we had evidence a, you would have used the word description. Instead, you went for a definition, indicating you were citing parameters of an abstract concept.
As for your question about evidence, we are currently discussing how the Big Bang came about if there was no time beforehand. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
First, the Big Bang Theory is just a model to explain observed evidence.
My understanding is that the Big Bang model places the singularity at one end of space-time, with all matter compressed into a single point, infinitely massive. (I am not sure how they get the infinite mass out of a finite supply of matter.)
According to the model, the singularity then expanded away from the end of time, simultaneously expanding outward in space.
I recently watched a documentary that included discussions of computer models that showed that the model universe did not expand fast enough over 13.6 billion years if only "visible" matter was tracked by the model. The modeled expansion was just too slow.
However, when dark matter was accounted for, the estimated mass of the dark matter added enough to result in a model universe that has the same approximate size and distribution as the real universe.
Now, don't ask me how they estimate the mass of the matter universe (dark and otherwise); all I know is that it is based on data collected by telescopes and spectrometers. I am doubtful the estimates are actually correct, but at least they were based on actual observations.
I am likewise doubtful that the backward extrapolations are reliable enough to justify the insistence that they "know what the universe was like a nanosecond after the Big Bang," but again, the extrapolations are based on observed movements of galaxies, etc.
Regarding the first law of thermodynamics, I have no idea how dark matter figures into it. One theory is that dark matter coalesces bit by bit into "visible" matter, but I put that in the same category as "god made the universe".
The description of the universe after the Big Bang is based on observation, and the estimation of the Big Bang is based on mathematics and physics applied to those observations.
By contrast, the definition of god is based only on supposition, rumor, and wishful thinking, without any supporting observations. For example, there is no evidence to support the proposition that god predated the universe, created physics, or has infinite power, etc.
The evidence for God IS based on "direct interaction" because, as I'm trying to show in our debate, God directly influences the universe regularly. But we'll get to that later.
"First, the Big Bang Theory is just a model to explain observed evidence." Yes, so what? Just like my theory of God, the Big Bang Theory comes from going through the facts and the evidence and making logical deductions. Based on collected and observed evidence, we can be certain that the universe had a Beginning.
"My understanding is that the Big Bang model places the singularity at one end of space-time, with all matter compressed into a single point, infinitely massive." Your understanding of the BB is correct. The important part is that the BB initiated time.
"I am not sure how they get the infinite mass out of a finite supply of matter." That's the part that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics!
The Big Bang Theory is not an "estimation". It is a logical deduction based off the facts and data that we reliably collected. www.big-bang-theory.com says "Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe."
the definition of god is based only on supposition, rumor, and wishful thinking, without any supporting observations. For example, there is no evidence to support the proposition that god predated the universe, created physics, or has infinite power, etc.
Let's just move to a hypothetical situation for a moment here. Let's just say that:
1. You can show beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain thing happened.
2. You collect data
3. You make some theories
4. You use the data and go through the theories, indiscriminately striking down the theories that do not make sense with the data, until you have one theory left.
And in our situation, that one theory that we have left is the Big Bang, which says that nothing was made from something.
And the only credible theory that's been created up to this point is God, because if God created the space-time dimension, then he therefore is not controlled by those theories or laws of physics.
I want to point out the significance of the term definition. Were god a thing with observed properties based on direct interaction, something for which we had evidence a, you would have used the word description. Instead, you went for a definition, indicating you were citing parameters of an abstract concept.
You are relying on the conceptualization that God is composed of anything within our universe. He is not. He created the universe and all of its properties. He isn't composed of properties that he had to invent.
Of course this isn't nearly all of the definitive terms used to define God by creationists.
These are the only ones commonly (not exclusively) given to me in answer to the question, "What do you mean by god?"
It is dreadfully depressing how few people can articulate to me what they mean by the term. Most people seem to know very little about the religion they claim, and can explain even less than that about the conceptualized being at the center of it.
The sad fact is that when asked, most people, particularly believers in some religion or other, have a very difficult time explaining what they mean by god.
The answer the vast majority of people settled on when I asked was nothing more specific than, "You know, whoever created the universe."
Somewhat less often, people also played with the answer, "God is love," (not "god is loving") but when asked to explain how that fits with other aspects of their belief, or with how the universe functions, they cannot explain it. This is especially true when those who believe in hell are asked to explain the address the conflict between eternal damnation and love, or to explain how a feeling can create a universe.
Often, however, the answers different people give for what god is contradict each other. For example, some people say male, some say female, some say both, some say neither.
If you ask enough people to go into detail, it becomes obvious that there is no consensus, but because nobody really seems to examine any details of what they or anybody else say they mean by the term god, that fact remains invisible.
My experience is that people in the clergy are generally just as in the dark as everybody else, but they cover it with a lot more stock phrases, that they cannot explain, either.
Sure, many folks have a belief that there must be something there, and I see no reason to conclude the feeling is wrong. However, most of them don't have any conceptualization that is fleshed out enough to be more than a convenient repository for fiction and wishful thinking.
The only rational conclusion to come to is that there is no reason to believe ANYBODY knows what they are talking about when they talk about god.
I also disagree. I believe that those who believe in God do not want a convenient explanation. The existence of God makes complete sense if you think about it. There is one main point here. For anything to move, it has to be moved by another. For example, a desk cannot move by itself; someone has to push it. No matter how long the universe has been in existence, something has to have initially put it into motion - something that did not have a creator. That being or entity is called God.
For anything to move, it has to be moved by another . . . No matter how long the universe has been in existence, something has to have initially put it into motion - something that did not have a creator. That being or entity is called God.
Do you recognize the logical problem/inconsistency in your reasoning?
You insist that everything has to come from something (have a mover that moved it.)
Then you say that the earlier something is god, not the universe, as if that is the end of it.
The same rule would necessarily apply to god, who like the universe, must have been moved by another, which must have been moved by another.
Your logic devolves into an eternal regression of movers unless, like medieval philosophers, you say there must have been an unmoved mover.
You seem to have designated that god is the unmoved mover without explaining why the universe cannot be the unmoved mover, or why god must be.
(Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the the order was necessarily god before universe, not the other way around.)
I have thought about it, and I believe there is no God. Maybe a desk has to move by itself, but we as humans do not. We can move our selves. And we have because there is no one else controlling us. Not god.
Do you really need a proof to admit that the God exists . Just mark your words when you are in a cumbersome situation , you will no longer need any proof. I don't want to fall into the discussion whether the God exists or not but this belief of mine keep me alive motivated inspired and protected that's pretty enough for me
Nope. Since when has there been any evidence that God actually is real? People say that I need to believe and trust that he is real, but there is NO proof. Nobody has proven that he is real. If heaven is a place that we go when we die, then it us a place that we can go to. If God is immoral... Then why not us? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I will not believe God is real until giving evidence.
Well said. If god is kind and loving, then why would he make all atheists go to hell because we didn't believe in him. If the Christian god wanted people to believe in him, then why not show himself, and dispel all doubt?
I consider it possible that a self-aware entity exists in this universe that exists outside of what we are capable of understanding, for now. Possible, but unlikely. If such an entity exists, there is no reason to assume there is only one, no reason to assume it created us, no reason to assume it's listening, or that it cares. At some point it becomes a mistake to call it a "god". It also may very well be a mistake to try and get its attention. If you want to know why, look up videos of people pouring molten aluminum down anthills, and then realize we would be the ants in that situation. If, however, we're stuck with a god that is a singular entity, did create us (taking great effort to cover up that it did so), does care what goes on down here (for some reason, and has a funny way of showing it) and is actually a certain version of some ultra specific god that someone actually worships, to the point that they can stand up and say "Out of all of the religions throughout history, we got it right", then we would have to determine whether or not that god is worth worshipping. I would say No. Depending on what ultra specific god we would be stuck with, I might say Fuck No. In fact, if we're stuck with the kind of bastard that would cast you into a hell for being the way it created you to be, then not only should we not be worshipping it, we should be figuring out how to kill it.
The God I believe in only casts someone into Hell because they are a sinner, and God didn't create people to be sinners. According to what I believe in, original sin came about during that famous story of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge against God's direct order.
God created humans with free will, because if we didn't have free will than we are a pointless creation.
On top of that, I was taught that the people in Hell are only there because they haven't asked forgiveness for their sins. If only they sincerely ask forgiveness, they are allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
And by the way, the reason I make a point to say "the God I believe in..." or "I was taught that..." is so that we're on the same page about which belief system we're talking about here.
Almost definitely not because there are approximately 320,000,000 Gods worshiped around the world and the chances that your god is the "one true god" are so damn small. If god does exist then he sure isn't one of the ones you retards worship
Thousands of different gods have being proposed to exist since the dawn of time , most now are a thing of the past that have died out with the people that believed in them .
To make a claim a god exists is to claim that an entity that cannot be seen heard or touched does in fact exist as the majority of believers claim to have a “ relationship “ with this entity , taking Christianity alone there are 33,000 diffferent denominations of this religion and each and everyone disagrees with the other , also nearly every believer differs in how they define god which demonstrates clearly they are merely indoctrinated and that’s the reason they are believers as the majority never had a choice in the matter
If you don't believe in the God of Abraham you aren't a Christian denomination by definition. It's like claiming there are Muslims who can't agree on who or what Allah is. No there aren't.
Yeshua is the best Person that ever happened to me, and I am sorry for being mean, truce?....................................................................................
If you walked into almost any denomination's church you couldn't tell the difference between them and another denomination or even tell which was which.
These church's don't disagree on the basics. About the only differences are how formal they are, which has nothing to do with Disagreeing about anything notable.
If you walked into almost any denomination's church you couldn't tell the difference between them and another denomination or even tell which was which.
If you walked into a pub you couldn’t tell the difference between a communist a fascist or a racist , so what’s your point ?
These church's don't disagree on the basics.
Well yes they do
About the only differences are how formal they are, which has nothing to do with Disagreeing about anything notable.
It's false logic. A congregation would open their mouths. The preacher would open their mouth. There would be a sermon. And they would all preach the same path to salvation.
It doesn't matter what they disagree on because the things they disagree on aren't doctrinal, meaning of little importance. You also haven't provided us any of these "disagreements".
The disagreements are:
1)Should the leaders wear robes, suits, or casual.
I'm Catholic, but I actively and totally oppose the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church. They protest all over the place, and they say that the deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are the punishments of God, angry at America for accepting homosexuals into society. Their signs say things like "God Hates F*gs" and "Thank God For Dead Soldiers"
And I'm pro-LGBTQ+
That's a pretty fundamental difference if you ask me.
On top of that, Evangelicals, for instance, have female ministers. Catholics don't. Now to be honest, I pretty much support the idea of a female minister (or at least I'm okay with it) but that difference between Catholics and Evangelicals opens up a whole can of worms about women's rights in the eyes of God.
As of the moment there is not enough evidence to declare yes or no. However there is no option to say anything other then yes or no. Its a matter of Faith. Personally I believe in god, but its not a god you would think of. As a Pastafarian I believe that the world will soon be touched by his spaghetti Holiness.
|GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS||GOD IS JUST GOODNESS|
"In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires. It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit."
How does this even count as evidence? These are just quotes from the bible, the same book that depicts talking snakes, a medium-sized boat that can carry the entire animal kingdom, and a man surviving 40 days without food or drink.
It counts as evidence because it describes a situation that matches today's situation. This particular list doesn't even nearly give much of the prophecies.
Talking snakes is a false dichotomy in that the story is an allegory. More proof of this is found in Ezekiel 31. The Noah story is an allegory referenced by Christ as depicting the condition and happenings in the end of days.
In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
“‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?
3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.
4 The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.
5 So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.
6 All the birds of the sky
nested in its boughs,
all the animals of the wild
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.
7 It was majestic in beauty,
with its spreading boughs,
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.
8 The cedars in the garden of God
could not rival it,
nor could the junipers
equal its boughs,
nor could the plane trees
compare with its branches—
no tree in the garden of God
could match its beauty.
9 I made it beautiful
with abundant branches,
the envy of all the trees of Eden
in the garden of God.
10 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because the great cedar towered over the thick foliage, and because it was proud of its height, 11 I gave it into the hands of the ruler of the nations, for him to deal with according to its wickedness. I cast it aside, 12 and the most ruthless of foreign nations cut it down and left it. Its boughs fell on the mountains and in all the valleys; its branches lay broken in all the ravines of the land. All the nations of the earth came out from under its shade and left it. 13 All the birds settled on the fallen tree, and all the wild animals lived among its branches. 14 Therefore no other trees by the waters are ever to tower proudly on high, lifting their tops above the thick foliage. No other trees so well-watered are ever to reach such a height; they are all destined for death, for the earth below, among mortals who go down to the realm of the dead.
15 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day it was brought down to the realm of the dead I covered the deep springs with mourning for it; I held back its streams, and its abundant waters were restrained. Because of it I clothed Lebanon with gloom, and all the trees of the field withered away. 16 I made the nations tremble at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the realm of the dead to be with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, the well-watered trees, were consoled in the earth below. 17 They too, like the great cedar, had gone down to the realm of the dead, to those killed by the sword, along with the armed men who lived in its shade among the nations.
18 “‘Which of the trees of Eden can be compared with you in splendor and majesty? Yet you, too, will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth below; you will lie among the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.
“‘This is Pharaoh and all his hordes, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”
Again, these are just random bible quotes. If you explained what they're supposed to mean in the context of this debate, then that would be much better.
It looks like it was an attempt to provide you Ezekial 31 to show that the same language used in your "talking snake" claim was way off, because the story isn't literal. This is why atheists tend to not be good debaters of religion. They don't even know the basics of what they are opposing.
I can debate against Islam because I know Islamic eschatology fully.
1.Leviticus 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.
This verse is not a command but a prophecy
And the prophecy was fulfilled by" baby farming" (search on google) .
2.Mark 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows.
This verse was fulfilled, look at the world history
HAHAHAAAAA! "It's all over the internet and YouTube"! Guess you haven't been watching the non-Faux news lately! There is SOOO much CRAP "all over the internet and YouTube" (and I MUST include "Twitter" ;-)). You must be one of those weak minded individuals that gobbled up the Russian and white nationalist CRAP that they are talking about! As I said, as an atheist, I have NEVER heard of this made-up garbage! You MUST be confusing it with a Trump rally! :-)
Please, tell me where I can find one of those atheistic "scream at the sky" sessions! I've never even HEARD of one. I would like to go there and tell them to STOP acting like evangelicals and have some self respect! (Are you SURE you know the difference between an evangelical and an atheist??) And just WHO is who?? Guess I must've missed that atheist 101 class.
I agree with you. In my point of view there are many things that humans can't prove and they are scared of the unknown, so they made up theories of Higher Beings just to satisfy their need of knowing and then kept passing their beliefs or theories to the next generation, yet there is no way of knowing if they are true. While I believe some of the teachings of Christianity, Buddhism etc can be applied to real life, I don't really think that a god exist.
Actually, I think it's modern scientists who are scared of the unknown. They actively search for a way to explain the universe that doesn't involve God, when instead they should be making logical deductions from the evidence, no matter where it leads them, which is what I would like to do in this debate. I think that the universe contains several, multi-layered proofs for the existence of God. The Big Bang, for instance, violates the first Law of Thermodynamics. It created something from nothing! How do you explain that without a God?
And no, I don't know what created God, but I don't need to because although my theory doesn't explain what created the Creator, it does provide for a cause of the Big Bang, while the theory of the atheist doesn't provide for either.
If you know Biblical prophecy, you'd have to ignore it to be Agnostic.
Not true. All you would have to do is admit that you do not actually know who wrote any of the biblical texts, nor could you know if the authors were just making stuff up.
It is all just rumor from unknown sources, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Your faith in the Bible is NOT faith in God, but in people who did nothing more to prove that it is accurate than merely to assert that it is.
Logically, if a book that was written thousands of years ago describes today in detail and is right, it doesn't matter if said book was written by an Alzheimer's patient. It's still obviously directed by God.
How could authors, known or unknown, predict all of what is pointed out in the first points on this side of the debate? (Much less all prophecies not included in this debate)
Just in those verses alone it tells us about one point in time referred to as the "end of days". Those days are described as:
1)Gospel goes worldwide.
2)A falling away from the faith and a rebellion against God.
3)The emergence of the beast system on the scene. Islam claims to be the beast system. It's why they imprison and behead Christians.
4)The genocide of Christians(happened by the millions during Obama's term)
5)Damascus is reduced to rubble.
6)Jerusalem is divided into 3 parts in Revelation. (It is divided into Muslim, Jewish and Christian sections today)
Then you aren't honest. You declared God as a figment of the imagination on the other side of the debate.
Read the post again. Which pronoun is applied is important. Sometimes the pronoun indicates humorous intent.
So you don't have to scroll up, the post you are referring to is:
No, I am a figment of the imaginations of people who want a convenient explanation for things they do not understand, a refuge from uncertainty, and an authority figure who will never show up to actually enforce the "Rules".
Saying I am a figment of your imagination is (for obvious reasons) self-contradictory, and thereby blatently humorously intended.
The post was not a statement about god, but about people. Speaking from the point of view of God is a literary conceit that provides an opportunity to discuss the actual function people relegate to god in their lives.
The fact that they can do this is simultaneously an acknowledgment of the lack of objectively observable evidence of god, god's existence, or god's qualities.
Nothing in my post supports either belief in god or atheism.
No, I am a figment of the imaginations of people who want a convenient explanation for things they do not understand, a refuge from uncertainty, and an authority figure who will never show up to actually enforce the "Rules".
Lie detector on. Um. No. This wasn't meant to be humorous. By your own claim, you are not honest.
If time can't just magically appear out of nothing, then how can God? I don't believe that time just randomly sprouted into existence, but I know that if a god exists, it wouldn't either. Using your logic, something must have created god. If god counts as a "something" then he couldn't have come out of "nothing".
He created time, space and matter. He didn't pop into existence out of his own creation. Sadly, the atheist cannot ask "how can it happen without God?"
He created time, space and matter. He didn't pop into existence out of his own creation. Sadly, the atheist cannot ask "how can it happen without God?"
A couple things.
1) We have to have some a priori assumptions as a starting point for any reasoning. Your a priori assumption is that God must have come first, before time and space, etc. and then created it all. That is fair, and within the rules of the game. I do have a question for you:
Why not assume that time and space came first, and that god developed from that? That is an equally valid a priori assumption.
The evidence for either is the same: nil.
2)Your assumption is that god existed before time (which is necessary for god to have created time.)
The implication of the concept before is that time already existed. (You cannot have before, during or after without time.) How do you think god pre-existing time works?
No. You saying the conditions for God come from something God created is nonsensical. The comparison is perfectly apt. You don't come from your own creation. It comes from you. The point is that time does not produce God, but God produces time. Even according to science, there was no time prior to the big bang, but only after.
Why not assume that time and space came first, and that god developed from that?
In that case, in order for god to have been created from that would be in a way where a bunch of materials and stuff would've been needed to combine to form god, along with his powers, mind, and consciousness. But the odds of that happening would be relatively small, of you get what I'm saying.
How do you think god pre-existing time works?
As we know, in the Bible it states that god is all powerful, etc. It also says that he has been around forever. It's hard for us to understand how that would happen since god shouldn't have been able to create everything in the first place without the existence of time. Also, humans don't know the answer to everything, so it would be hard for us to wrap our minds around the situation. Yet, he doesn't need time or space since he is almighty, and there are no limits for him. He is, after all, a god.
But the odds of that happening would be relatively small, of you get what I'm saying.
I assume you are trying to imply that such a thing did not happen. The problem is that the minute you use the word odds you are discussing probability. Implicit in all probability statements is that, regardless of how small the probability, the event in question is possible, and could have happened. The assertion of long odds does the precise opposite of supporting the implication that the event did not happen.
This means that stating that the odds of an event happening are "relatively small" says nothing about whether the event happened.
Yet, he doesn't need time or space since he is almighty, and there are no limits for him. He is, after all, a god.
You just begged the question. Inserting the words god or almighty into a question about the nature of time does not relieve us of the logical constraints required for making sensible and understandable statements.
The question, "How do you think god pre-existing time works?" is not a question about god but about time relative to the proposition that god created time.
You just begged the question. Inserting the words god or almighty into a question about the nature of time does not relieve us of the logical constraints required for making sensible and understandable statements.
The question isn’t necessarily about time itself, but more about how god existed before it. If it was a human, there would be no possible way, but in the case with god, it’s completely different. What I tried to say to the previous argument is how the chances of god being made out of the Big Bang (or something like that) has almost no chance of happening. But in fact, it’s pretty much impossible. When I said that god doesn’t need time, I was trying to say that he is all powerful and almighty, therefore he doesn’t need time since he created it.
I was trying to say that he is all powerful and almighty, therefore he doesn’t need time since he created it.
The problem of god creating time has nothing to do with god's needs or capabilities.
You are treading on the same ground as "Can an omnipotent god create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" The problem with the rock question is that the question is intrinsically self-contradictory.
There is the same problem with saying god created time. Inherent in the statement is the concept of before time.
- 1 - If god created time, then god existed before time.
- 2 - There is no time at before time.
- 3 - Before means at an earlier time.
- 4 - There cannot be at an earlier time than when time existed because there cannot logically be time before there was time. The statement makes no logical sense.
- Therefore, the statement "god created time" makes no sense; it is self-contradictory.
This is why the impossibility of god creating time has nothing to do with god's capabilities.
If you disagree, what part of my logic do you disagree with?
Time consists of before, during, and after. Try answering the following three questions in a way that addresses the logical issues I raise for each.
1) Did God decided to create time before he created time? This would seem to be impossible because before requires that time already exists.
2) Did God decide to create time during the process of creating time? Again, the problem is that during is time-based, and therefore requires time to exist before during can start.
3) Did God decide to create time after he created time? This would address the issue in #1, but disregards the fact that motivation after the fact implies that divine will is reactive, not proactive. Did god accidentally create time and then say, "I wish it had been a conscious decision to create time," and it was so? There is nothing illogical about a deity that can go through time backwards, but that leaves the causal issue unanswered. All we have done is switched the meanings of after and before.
Did God decided to create time before he created time? This would seem to be impossible because before requires that time already exists. probably God and time exist at the same time.
2) Did God decide to create time during the process of creating time? Again, the problem is that during is time-based, and therefore requires time to exist before during can start. probably God is 'with' time. It's not created but it's himself.
3) Did God decide to create time after he created time? This would address the issue in #1, but disregards the fact that motivation after the fact implies that divine will is reactive, not proactive. Did god accidentally create time and then say, "I wish it had been a conscious decision to create time," and it was so? There is nothing illogical about a deity that can go through time backwards, but that leaves the causal issue unanswered. All we have done is switched the meanings of after and before. probably God is just there. He is the creator, he just does'nt exist but instead he created existence or maybe he is 'with' existence.
Regarding the suggestion: Why not assume that time and space came first, and that god developed from that? That is an equally valid a priori assumption.
You wrote:
1)Maybe it did. We'd still have God.
No, we would only have God if the assumptions were correct, which has yet to be determined. We may merely have the assumption that God exists.
Our assumptions about whether or not something exists are irrelevant to the thing's actual existence.
You also wrote:
2)In real life it's doubtful seeing that it looks like our reality, space, time and matter all had a beginning at the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is merely a model, and it has the same limitations as the god model regarding time.
Near as I can tell, the Big Bang model sets up the model of a singularity, which necessarily locates it at the (an?) edge of space-time.
Your phrase "reality, space, time and matter all had a beginning at the Big Bang" does not use the word beginning in the same sense as "beginning of a movie" or similar event or condition that has a predecessor.
It is significant that your phrase places time's beginning at the boundary line of time's existence, not inside the boundary. This enables your statement to make sense.
I have absolutely no idea. I don't even know that god does not exist.
That is why I am an agnostic.
I CAN, however, tell when there is no evidence to support a proposition, and whether or not the proposition even makes sense.
People make up all these pretty theories and religions, primarily to explain inadequate and complete sets of evidence, and to answer poorly defined questions.
All of them are completely untestable and unverifiable, and many are nonsensical. All of that is fine.
We do not have to be able to prove that Highlander is true to be able to enjoy the movie. We just have to remember not to go around sword-fighting, cutting off strangers' heads, and saying, "There can be only one."
Your assumption is that god existed before time (which is necessary for god to have created time.
This is like claiming binary code had to exist before the computer programmer existed. It's nonsensical. If God created time there is no "before" to him. There just "is".
This is like claiming binary code had to exist before the computer programmer existed.
This is a false equivalency because the logical idiosyncrasies that pertain particularly to time do not pertain to other concepts, such as base 2 number systems, computer language, computers, or computer programmers.
I am only observing the logical issues in discussion of any condition that includes any pre-time concept, which incidentally includes the proposition that god created time. These are the same logical issues that arise whenever people propose that god is "outside of time" and "separate from time."
Significantly, these issues do not arise when people propose that god is "eternal," which indicates that both god and time have always existed, and therefore dispel any logical problems regarding before and after as they pertain to time.
If God created time there is no "before" to him. There just "is".
The fallacy I am addressing has nothing to do with before god, but rather with before time. This is due to the obvious factor that before, like during and after, intrinsically presupposes the existence of time.
The phrase before time is self-contradictory. Time must already exist to meet the necessary condition of before, but the phrase describes the condition that time does not yet exist.
There is no "before" in theory. That's your first mistake, at least in terms of this model, IMO.
In the "4th dimension", time is points and can be moved through like 3 dimensional space. It's like looking at a map. There isn't technically a point on the map that is first. With this, you can move to any point at will. Yesterday is no further "back" than tomorrow.
I'll provide 2 links if you are interested in my perspective.
In the "4th dimension", time is points and can be moved through like 3 dimensional space.
I am very familiar with this model.
The problem is that it completely discounts our personal experience. For example, it completely discounts the distinction between the experiences of fear and hope (before), nostalgia, regret, and anger (after), pain, happiness, and pleasure (during).
The model is completely helpless in the face of the question as to why we remember the past, and why we do not remember the future.
This is a false equivalency because the logical idiosyncrasies that pertain particularly to time do not pertain to other concepts, such as base 2 number systems, computer language, computers, or computer programmers.
You are assuming the construct of time isn't programmed. I am based on Super Symmetry in String Theory.
We have to have some a priori assumptions as a starting point for any reasoning. Your a priori assumption is that God must have come first, before time and space, etc. and then created it all.
My personal assessment is that time is just points thst can be moved to and from at God's will. There is no before. There is no after.
"How can it happen without God?" For thousands of years we struggled with that question. We have learned MANY things in those thousands of years. Now, finally, we are CLOSE, we have the advantage of centuries of study, telescopes and probes that reach light years into the universe and the knowledge to interpret what we see. We no longer rely on mythology for explanations. We no longer need Adam & Eve, no longer a 6 day story to build the Earth, no longer can accept Jonah & the Whale, Noah & the Ark saving two of each species, (How did the American Bison, the S.A. Ocelot, the Australian Kangaroo, The N.A Moose etc. survive? The animal equivalent to an Olympic Swim??
We are CLOSER to the answers to ALL your mythological questions. We just have to keep from blowing ourselves up! If we do, it may as well be Gods Will … WTF! :-D
I don't know what created God, or how, but I do know that the theory of an infinitely powerful Creator is the best theory I can find to explain the creation of the universe.
You are making assumptions as to the nature of God's reality. Maybe, in the real reality, nothing begins. Everything and all things infinitely exist.
But you don't have the luxury of this answer because you don't believe in God or other realities. You are stuck with explaining how time, matter, and space just "became", because you need a naturalistic answer based on this reality.
Tense was created by Stuff. It means nothing to stuff.
That is an equally valid and equally stupid statement to what you just said. What you are basically saying is that God doesn't need a reason to exist because he does therefor my baseless beliefs are true.
If you guys wanna debate SCIENCE and FACTS, then respond to this post. I'm not spouting verses like the stereotypical Catholic. Instead, I want to argue facts.
Let's start with the beginning of the Universe. Explain the Big Bang. It started the universe and it started time. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. There wasn't even like black space. It was an empty vacuum, and then suddenly there's an explosion? Like how???
