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.
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.
If there is no coding in RNA, then why are there species or classifications or families of living things? what describes the physical features of an offspring to match it's parents or kind?
If there wasn't specific descriptions in programming perhaps, goats will be delivering chicks, Hens delivering lizards but no, no matter what is responsible for the coding; RNA or DNA, it shows there is order in the output but not some random outcomes(like goat delivers chicks etc).
For DNA to give classifications, it's orderliness, evidence of a mind, a sound mind behind the design.
The point is programming.
Mindless things cannot classify.
If a programmer closes his eyes, and presses his keyboard anyhow and anywhere, his work would not be in order..
perhaps the character will have one hand on the head, one eye on the knee.
That is the outcome of mindlessness....disorder.
There cannot be order without a mind.
Beyond living flesh, we can also turn to look at timing for plants, seasons, time, and outer space.
It is a must for there to be a mind behind the Universe i call God.
If there is no coding in RNA, then why are there species or classifications or families of living things? what describes the physical features of an offspring to match it's parents or kind?
You are getting mixed up between RNA/DNA and the genetic code. Why does everybody make this exact same error?
I was talking about the post you made prior to the one I replied to. Your misunderstanding was blatant, which is why your post was attacked and you had to revise your own argument.
Regardless you can't trace coding without DNA so what is your point?
I already told you the point you spectacularly stupid idiot. You don't understand the difference between RNA/DNA and the genetic code.
I was talking about the post you made prior to the one I replied to
There is no post prior to this one saying anything about RNA(specifically)
It was on this particular thread i made statements about all RNA/DNA and genetic coding.
From the way you speak lately i am getting highly suspicious that you are a drunkard(like recently revealed about dermot) and you are usually drunk when posting on CD.
your life is messed up...no wonder you are atheist(the sedative for God haters), you must really hate God.
You don't understand the difference between RNA/DNA and the genetic code.
Even when there is google and a full article for me to read on(of which i have read half already)
I'm done talking to you for a while....I would not have started here except that I mistakenly thought it was my debate and I was going to ban you and advise you to not let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
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?
You know why....because the Bible says you will fry like an eternal sausage if you don't believe Jesus is God who rose bodily from the dead, won't say sorry for your sins to God, and won't ask God in Jesus name to save you from Hell.
Any other concept of whatever you refer to as "god" or "a god" is something you can live with (better, something you can die with).......but dying with God as revealed in the Bible is something that never ends in the fire of Hell and you must fight against that tooth and nail until you are blue in the face so you can feel like you are winning your argument against God and won't be flame broiled forever.
"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.
Like I said, you have to fight tooth and nail against the Bible because it says that if you won't believe Jesus is God who died for your sins and rose bodily from the dead offering forgiveness, eternal life to all who repent of their sins and receive Him by faith as He is, the Living God the Only Savior, ........if you will not believe on Him you are condemned....and that means eternity in the lake of fire.
You love your sin more than life, so you must fight against the word of God and try to convince yourself that you have the right to exist as a sinner outside of Hell.
if you won't believe Jesus is God who died for your sins
Your own scripture proves that this claim is complete nonsense.
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46, KJV)
But your knowledge of the bible is pitiful , I've tested you and you've failed abysmally as your insanity is an impediment to any instruction on my part being effective
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.
The fact is that you do indeed love sin more than life, that is why you will not take sides with God against your sin. You think the pleasures of sin are worth more than life, so you are losing it all in death and if you will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be dying forever like you are now and confined in the fire of Hell where your sin won't bother the living any longer.
I would like for you to pretend you are in an art museum. You enter a room and walk to a painting. You look at this painting. Do you think to yourself, "I wonder how this painting got here?" or "How did this painting come to being?" No, you do not. You know paintings cannot paint themselves, so therefore the painting has a painter. Paintings are intricately designed, and anything with an intelligent, intricate design must have a designer, much like a book. Books are intricate. Books do not create themselves. They have an intelligent author who wrote them. The same goes for this world, this galaxy, this universe, and everything within it. The design is so intricate that only an intelligent designer could have designed such a wonderful, intricate, beautiful thing.
Another topic I would like to bring up is constants. By constants, I mean environmental and physical factors. Things like how the sun is the perfect distance away from us. If it were one inch closer, we would burn up, and if it were one inch further away, then we would freeze to death. There are about 160 of these constants. Constants are interdependent. A small change in one constant may affect other constants and could prevent or destroy the conditions necessary for life.
There are quite a few issues with the argument from design, but those have all be addressed numerous times, like in these videos which you can watch at your leisure if you're interested.
Instead of talking about the flaws in the argument, I want to take a different approach. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the universe was designed. Do you think we can learn things about the designer by looking at the things they designed?
"the sun is the perfect distance away from us. If it were one inch closer, we would burn up, and if it were one inch further away, then we would freeze to death."
The Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. The distance between the Sun and Earth varies between 91 million and 94.5 million miles. So, the distance from the Sun varies by 3.5 million miles, depending on the time of year. source
The Earth could be 2.69 million miles closer to the sun, or roughly 50 million miles further from the Sun before it became uninhabitable.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe, and many of them are in a habitable zone from a star. source
The Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. The distance between the Sun and Earth varies between 91 million and 94.5 million miles. So, the distance from the Sun varies by 3.5 million miles, depending on the time of year. source
The Earth could be 2.69 million miles closer to the sun, or roughly 50 million miles further from the Sun before it became uninhabitable.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable Universe, and many of them are in a habitable zone from a star. source
Good post mate. Another thing to consider is the anthropic principle. However perfect conditions might be, they needed to be that way in order for something to exist capable of questioning them.
I will pose this question on both sides since both sides are indecisive. Either side here is a gamble and if you stand in either position you are gambling that you can exist outside of Hell with no assurance of being able to do so.
The question is this: Why is it "The God of Christianity" that you want to be non-existent? Is He the One who created all things, or are you trying to prove that things less than Him are not Him?
3. Therefor the universe has a designer and that designer is God.
I believe in Christianity because it is comforting there may not be evidence on video of the universe being made but if every design has a designer then the universe has a designer. Who's with me?
This is a circular fallacy because your conclusion is also your hypothesis. You claim the universe has a design, hence you must conclude it has a designer.
This is exactly the same unsupported premise I just pointed out was an unsupported premise. You've literally just repeated it. Either show some evidence that the universe is a design, or stop calling it one you irrational nincompoop.
I guess you are blind.........how can colors be described to a blind man? It's the love of God you are missing while you are running out of time. God won't give you forever to change your mind and seek His mercy. He gave His life for you, and now He gives you time and you insist He is nothing to you? And you think He should allow you to spread your stink outside of Hell?
Well you don't do logic and you're not a " genius " let me help you do the work a postal course in Christian philowont cut it ; I think I've corrected you 3 times on this your favour argument ......
Now pay attention and read it slowly ........
The Argument:
(This argument is called the Watch Maker Argument and says that there appears to be design in a watch therefore there must have been a designer. A different example people use is a painting and a painter and they say that this same designing concept also applies to the universe and evolution.)
The Counter Argument:
The reason the watch and the painting arguments fail is because you know these things have been designed by people and there are many examples of these things being manufactured and built in workshops and in art studios. There are no examples on the other hand that humans have been designed in workshops or zapped into existence with a magic wand. Complexity does not mean design within the natural world. Simplicity can form complexity within the natural world. Many things that appear to be designed are not. Snowflakes and crystals are made by natural means and not by a Magical-Man in the sky. Snowflakes and crystals only occur under the right natural conditions. As in the case for snowflakes and crystals life also needs certain conditions in order to form. There are no known natural processes that allow watches and paintings to form whereas snowflakes, diamonds and the foundations of life have natural processes that allow for them to form under the right conditions. This argument contains the False Analogy fallacy because you cannot compare naturally occurring things to things that are not known to occur naturally under the right conditions. Watches and paintings do not have a way to replicate and do not occur naturally but living things and life can reproduce offspring and can occur naturally under the right conditions.
Note: Humans were designed but it was not a top down design coming from a god but a bottom up design coming from gradual modifications over long periods of time. Gene flow and mutation explain how things change within evolution.
If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you condemned to die? If you have the right to live outside of Hell, why do you not have the right to live?
You philosophy is vain, empty....all it brings you is death.
You ignored the obvious simple logic of deducing that a design implies a designer. Somehow you insert that whoever says a design implies a designer has already assumed God is there. You are the one who inserted the conclusion at the beginning of somebody else's reasoning, so you construct your own straw man to argue against. You created your own logical fallacy, then argued against it...ignoring that it's your own straw man.
That's what atheism is....it's a straw man fallacy. You invent a thing which you call "a god", which cannot be God because God is the creator of all things and cannot be invented....then you argue that the thing you call a god cannot possibly be God. Of course an invented thing cannot be the Creator of all things........duh.
What a waste of time and money in modern education claiming to be useful philosophy.....they fill you up with gobblety gook teaching you to use innuendo as the thing you argue against and somehow they get you to feel smart and strong while you actually make a fool out of yourself.
You are creating a straw man, implying that I said things I did not say.....you twist things around to create your own unrealistic version of reality, then you argue that the version you created is unrealistic......and somehow you seem immune to the obvious simple logic showing your own fallacies.
It is a logical conclusion when you see a design, you know there is a designer who originated it. If you can't see that the universe has a design, I guess you never heard of the laws of physics and never read anything about science.
(This argument is called the Watch Maker Argument and says that there appears to be design in a watch therefore there must have been a designer. A different example people use is a painting and a painter and they say that this same designing concept also applies to the universe and evolution.)
The Counter Argument:
The reason the watch and the painting arguments fail is because you know these things have been designed by people and there are many examples of these things being manufactured and built in workshops and in art studios. There are no examples on the other hand that humans have been designed in workshops or zapped into existence with a magic wand. Complexity does not mean design within the natural world. Simplicity can form complexity within the natural world. Many things that appear to be designed are not. Snowflakes and crystals are made by natural means and not by a Magical-Man in the sky. Snowflakes and crystals only occur under the right natural conditions. As in the case for snowflakes and crystals life also needs certain conditions in order to form. There are no known natural processes that allow watches and paintings to form whereas snowflakes, diamonds and the foundations of life have natural processes that allow for them to form under the right conditions. This argument contains the False Analogy fallacy because you cannot compare naturally occurring things to things that are not known to occur naturally under the right conditions. Watches and paintings do not have a way to replicate and do not occur naturally but living things and life can reproduce offspring and can occur naturally under the right conditions.
Note: Humans were designed but it was not a top down design coming from a god but a bottom up design coming from gradual modifications over long periods of time. Gene flow and mutation explain how things change within evolution.
The subject was your whacky idea of a logical fallacy. It is a logical conclusion when we see a design, it indicates a designer. If you want to believe the universe poofed itself into existence with no purpose, and life has no real value or meaning, and right and wrong really don't matter, you can believe that. You are free to hope in nothing but death...free to hope that there is no Hell for sinners.
It is you who is living a logical fallacy, you have no starting point for the universe without a designer. You have to make all kinds of assumptions, believe them to be true, and then spend a life time finding "evidence" to support your belief. It is pseudo-scientists you admire who make a career out of begging the question, and the hordes which you are part of pay them to do it because you want to believe you are exonerated in death so you won't burn in Hell.
There is only one logical explanation for life and reality....and it is the truth, embodied in Jesus Christ who died for your sins so that Him who could not be held of death is willing and able to forgive you of all your sins and keep you in eternal life with Him.
This stuff is so lame brained, it's boring. It's more fun talking to a real parrot that to talk to an atheist trained to be a parrot.
You beg the question by saying we see a design in the first place. That is your fallacy. You need to demonstrate there is design before you can conclude there is a designer.
The starting point of this universe? Ever heard of the big bang theory?
You have to make all kinds of assumptions, believe them to be true, and then spend a life time finding "evidence" to support your belief.
This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. What assumptions have I made? You seem to know all about what I believe despite my having never expressed them to you.
This stuff is so lame brained, it's boring. It's more fun talking to a real parrot that to talk to an atheist trained to be a parrot.
You're right, it is boring. I have no desire to engage with someone who doesn't make arguments or engage in reasoned discussion. This has nothing to do with your faith, there's lots of Christians you can have a good discussion with. It's because you're a petulant fool.
If you think it's logical then please present your argument, preferably in syllogistic form, and we shall see how it stands up to scrutiny.
You might want to look in the mirror and notice that your face is basically the same as everybody else's. Looks to me like a design.....I guess it looks like a meaningless mess to you.
If you don't see a design in nature, you must have less than the brains of the primates you believe were the parents of your great greater and greatest grandparents. Even the primates recognize design in nature, you can tell by the way they act.
The laws of physics show there is a design in nature, as all of nature, the entire universe, acts according to those laws.
How could anybody who is able to read or write, or even only able to watch the boob tube not have heard of the big bang theory....which in reality is only a hypothesis. To believe in the big bang, you have to believe in a lot of nonsense and totally inexplicable ideas which can easily be shown by science or logic to be impossible. Your question "ever heard of the big bang theory" is an insult. Your leaders have programmed you to use insults as a protective mechanism for your ego in order to avoid examining their interpretations of data objectively.
I do not mean to be insulting when I say you are talking like a trained parrot. I am trying to get you to doubt the things your leaders have told you, rather than to surrender your discernment in preference of believing God will not hold you accountable for the things you have given your time to in word, thought, and deed. The people who are training you to mindlessly repeat their irrational beliefs are not your friends.
You assume there is no God. Your entire worldview must bend to fit your assumption, so your interpretations of data must ignore anything which contradicts your belief. Believing in the big bang is not true science, practicing science to support the belief is not true science as the initial assumption dictates the outcome of your inquiries.
You do not scrutinize the things you have been told to believe. I present no argument, I simply point out the truth. It is you who is arguing against the truth. You feel you can't have a good discussion with me because you are fighting against the truth and I keep putting it in your face. The reaction of atheists is generally the same.....to claim intellectual and/or moral superiority and use blatant or subtle insults pretending you are strong. So if you must, then exit the discussion and declare yourself superior.
I guess if you do not see a design in nature, then it would be a fallacy for me to say "we" see a design in nature. I guess you have no sight, smell, hearing, touch, or taste......or your mind has a malfunction to everything to you seems to be in disorder.
The laws of physics apply to all physical things if you observe those things or not. The laws are prescribed and do not change. A prescription indicates a scribe. That is why you try to deny the laws of physics are operative before you can use them to describe things.
You're confusing the map for the place. The laws are just descriptions, there conceptual.
The phenomenon the laws refer to are real and appear to be invariant and not contingent upon any individual mind, although we are unable to demonstrate this explicitly.
You are confusing your desire with reality. Sure the laws are conceptual......are they your concept, or do they exist without your description or recognition?
Did you put the laws of physics in place? Were you there when they were established?
Somebody taught you to say things which are supposed to be impressive and condescending as a means of elevating yourself to and unquestionable status....they are frauds teaching you to be a fraud.
If you feel I'm being condescending then that's your issue, I can't be held accountable for your inferences.
There isn't anything impressive in what I'm saying, you've understood most of it so it isn't going over your head.
The difference between you and I is I'm more than happy to have my beliefs questioned and scrutinized. It's a win win for me, either I come out the other side with an increased level of confidence that my beliefs are true, or I find that what I thought was true is not and re-evaluate, bringing me even closer to the truth.
You and some other theists (not all I might add) do exactly the same thing, if you even get a whiff of someone who might disagree with you or be questioning your beliefs you go on the attack immediately and begin hurling insults. You don't take any time to find out what an individual believes, you brand them an atheist, assume what they believe and then spew out the same tired rhetoric you have previously. Maybe just for once you could clarify what someone thinks, treat them as individual and have a stimulating discussion.
Or do what you've always done and close your mind to other peoples beliefs. The hallmark of ignorance is insularity my friend, I'm not saying you should agree with everything, but at least listen.
Yeah yeah yeah, atheists must pretend to be intellectually if not morally superior. You are only fooling yourself.
What happened? You got mad because I implied that you are ignorant if you don't see that nature shows design?
You do not question your own beliefs. You have adopted the twenty or so talking points of atheism and you employ their methodology which basically is jumping from one rabbit trail to another when truth is getting too close to you. I take it by your behavior here that you are unwilling to concede nature shows design, and you recognize the foolishness of continuing to deny that there is design in nature so you have jumped to a new rabbit trail trying to play a silly "I'm a better person than you" game.
Give me a break...no time to find out what you believe? You are parroting the same twenty or so talking points of atheists which I have heard from before I could read. They shove it on children as soon as they possible can. If you feel you are being attacked, it's only because I present truth and you don't like it because you are trying to justify your own life...which common sense should tell you is impossible.
You have been rude from the start with your air of intellectual superiority. I am being realistic and patient with you because I find your style entertaining enough....and I can answer your futile philosophy with half of my brain tied behind my back.
Yeah yeah yeah, atheists must pretend to be intellectually if not morally superior. You are only fooling yourself.
You have been rude from the start with your air of intellectual superiority. I am being realistic and patient with you because I find your style entertaining enough....and I can answer your futile philosophy with half of my brain tied behind my back
You have a real chip on your shoulder about this don't you? It's a real shame. If you feel intellectually and morally inferior to someone you've never met on the internet that is again your issue. You could always educate yourself if this is the case. If it's not the case then I don't see why you's bother bringing it up since it has nothing to do with the debate.
If you feel you up to the task then that's a good thing, why not engage in debate rather than petulant insults and fallacies?
You do not question your own beliefs. You have adopted the twenty or so talking points of atheism and you employ their methodology which basically is jumping from one rabbit trail to another when truth is getting too close to you. I take it by your behavior here that you are unwilling to concede nature shows design, and you recognize the foolishness of continuing to deny that there is design in nature so you have jumped to a new rabbit trail trying to play a silly "I'm a better person than you" game.
Don't try and shift the burden of proof. You've made a claim that nature shows design, demonstrate this is the case or cease wasting my time with baseless assertions.
I cannot demonstrate to you that nature shows design. If you won't see it, you won't see it. The laws of physic show design, everything shows design........you simply can't face it because you know that design implies a designer.
It's atheists who bear the chip on their shoulder as they do everything they can to oppress the truth, and honestly, I have to admit that because I concede to the truth I think I am smarter than you. Atheism is willfully closing down a large part of your brain so you are forced to keep your philosphy and knowledge inside a box where you are the greatest mind and whatever you say goes for you....as far as you can see in death which is not seeing at all. That box is a mental block wall and your "arguing" is constantly trying to plug the holes in the mortar. God is still there, it's only yourself who is boxed in and the box you love is your own coffin.
There is no insult here, it's just the truth......you are hoping in death to be exonerated and exempt from condemnation...you are condemned to die but somehow you think it's okay. You need to be saved from your sins or you will wake up in Hell frying like an eternal sausage....and that thought is why you hate the truth.
I have no burden of proof, I am not asking you to prove anything and there is no point in trying to prove to you something you will not believe regardless of facts. You are trying to prove for yourself that God cannot be better, stronger, smarter than you......and in order to carry on in the endeavor, you have to keep your mind in that box. It is you who must prove for yourself that you have the right to exist
outside of Hell.
The discussion was "is there a design in nature?", I say obviously yes and you deny it. You've tried to run me around on five or ten rabbit trails, half of the time insulting me and attacking my character.....all because you are avoiding the fact that nature shows design and all you can do is deny it.
YOu write a whole paragraph of petulant insults, then tell me not to engage in petulant insults? What a punk you are......a petulant one who loves his fallacies of denial, pretending to see no design in nature.
If you cannot demonstrate your premise then were done, you haven't met your burden proof and furthermore have no good reason to believe there is design in nature yourself, otherwise you would have offered that reason.
You might as well be done because you are arrogant and have insulted me many times.........I brush it off, you take the "intellectual insult" approach, at least that is better than when people like Dickie Dawkins the pedophilia condoning professor start acting rabid and cussing like demons from Hell.
I said repeatedly that the laws of physics show design...it's order, you can't change it and you didn't cause it....the order is there with or without your acknowledgement. Asking me to prove it is just plain playing ignorant. Typical atheist, can't handle the truth. Be done, that's your choice, your a dead man walking and you love your sin more than life so be done.
The truth does not require proof. If you won't believe it, you won't believe it yet it stands in spite of your unbelief.
You want to believe it is not possible for you to end up frying like an eternal sausage in Hell........Prove it. You declare it to be true....and that is your logical fallacy, claiming to know things you don't know.
If you keep on in your way, You will end up in Hell with no way out and I don't have to prove it. You will see for yourself, won't you? You hope not, I guess...you hope to see nothing, the atheistic hope of nothing....atheism is nonsense.
You want to believe it is not possible for you to end up frying like an eternal sausage in Hell........Prove it.
Burden shifting again? You're arguments dead, it just wont have the courtesy to lie down. Although I do love the eternal sausage in hell metaphor, it made me chuckle.
If you keep on in your way, You will end up in Hell with no way out and I don't have to prove it. You will see for yourself, won't you? You hope not, I guess...you hope to see nothing, the atheistic hope of nothing....atheism is nonsense.
If your God wants to punish me eternally for not believing in something that I have no good reason to believe in then he is a petty, megalomaniacal fascist who isn't deserving of an ounce of worship and he is morally inferior to me.
Why are you always trying to place your burden in me? It seems to me that the person crying about a burden is the one who is carrying it. Chuckle all you want, the truth remains and you are a dead man walking.
God does not want to punish you eternally, He wants to give you eternal life and bless you eternally....but you are too stinking proud to admit that you deserve to die and burn in Hell, you stand in offense against God and you think you will be unpunished like that?
Sure, you are the righteous one who can't live.....makes a lot of sense. Keep on going the way you are going and see for yourself what it gets you. You are proving for yourself if you are right or wrong, aren't you? Tick tock, tick tock...typical atheistic parrot on your way to Hell.
Why are you always trying to place your burden in me? It seems to me that the person crying about a burden is the one who is carrying it. Chuckle all you want, the truth remains and you are a dead man walking.
You think this because you appear to have no understanding of rudimentary logic. The one making the claim has the burden. It's quite simple.
God does not want to punish you eternally, He wants to give you eternal life and bless you eternally....but you are too stinking proud to admit that you deserve to die and burn in Hell, you stand in offense against God and you think you will be unpunished like that?
Sure, you are the righteous one who can't live.....makes a lot of sense. Keep on going the way you are going and see for yourself what it gets you. You are proving for yourself if you are right or wrong, aren't you? Tick tock, tick tock...typical atheistic parrot on your way to Hell.
The last bastion of a desperate theist, the threat of eternal damnation in the absence of some demonstration of your claim. You're not convincing anyone, I don't know why you persist. If you believe I'm going to hell that's fine, I couldn't care less. But why continue responding? what are you hoping to achieve?
Sure, you say I have no understanding of rudimentary logic, and you can't see any design in nature......and you are not insulting me. I'll tell you the truth...you are a rude pseudo-intellectual punk. The truth does not need to be proved, you have the burden of proof to disprove it if you don't like it....that is what you are trying to do and you must because you walk according to your lusts.
"The last bastion of a desperate theist"......and you are not insulting me. Yeah, right....you're just a punk fooling yourself into thinking you are better, smarter, and stronger than God. How much of this garbage do you expect me to read? You want to play your sick games and then claim you are all good and nice and can't have a good conversation with a real Christian? You're just a punk who hates God and denies the truth of reality.
Obviously I am not convincing you of anything, that is not my problem. Your blood is on your own head.
Sure, you say I have no understanding of rudimentary logic, and you can't see any design in nature......and you are not insulting me.
You've demonstrated your lack of understanding, so it was an observation. If you're insulted by me noticing your lack of understanding, then that's too bad. You could quite easily remedy the situation.
The truth does not need to be proved, you have the burden of proof to disprove it if you don't like it....that is what you are trying to do and you must because you walk according to your lusts.
Must I explain how it works again? The one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim there is design in nature, you need to demonstrate it. If you can't then your argument is not sound. How many more times will you fall foul of this fallacy?
Yeah, right....you're just a punk fooling yourself into thinking you are better, smarter, and stronger than God.
I don't believe God exists, so I wouldn't be fooling myself into thinking anything about him in relation to me, would I?
How much of this garbage do you expect me to read?
Stop if you want.
You want to play your sick games and then claim you are all good and nice and can't have a good conversation with a real Christian?
I said nothing of the sort. I said there are some Christians you can have a good conversation with, illustrating you were not one of them. If your claiming these are not "real" Christians and you are, that is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
You're just a punk who hates God
I can't hate something I don't believe exists.
and denies the truth of reality.
Bare assertion fallacy. Demonstrate the truth of it if you're able.
Obviously I am not convincing you of anything, that is not my problem. Your blood is on your own head.
Because you present unconvincing arguments. Offer something with substance or give up.
You don't want to believe that death has been conquered, there is nothing but the fire of Hell to convince you that you are not good enough to live. I've told you enough, your blood is on your own head as you have refused the blood of Christ which He gave to cover the sins of all who believe on Him. You have no covering for yourself, so go on and tell God what you told me, how you are more righteous than Him.....and you will appear before Him after trampling His blood, spitting in His face with your claim of moral superiority over God.....and you really think you have the right to live outside of Hell?
The fact that you will not acknowledge design in nature does not place upon me any burden of proof to convince you that it does show design. You can't prove anything to somebody who believes they are nothing more than wet minerals with a fizz which causes an illusion of consciousness.
The fact that you will not acknowledge design in nature does not place upon me any burden of proof to convince you that it does show design
Of course it does you demented dunce nugget. Otherwise we are just going to assume that you are crazy. Crazy people believe things they have no evidence to support and you have no evidence to support your belief that nature is designed. Is that just a startling coincidence?
Because I am a true follower of God and you are an AGENT OF SATAN. God HATES his celebrity status and wishes for MINIMUM PUBLICITY, but you are openly defying him like the unholy horned paparazzi you unequivocally are. You are an EVIL MAN who wants to make a reality show out of the GOOD LORD JESUS.
Hi. I wasn't talking to you, when I am talking to you I will look for your response, I will not be looking for your response to this post...if I see one, I will remind you that I wasn't talking to you
You are too closed minded. If you want to believe you are as good as God and like Him you have the right to exist outside of Hell, go on believing that.
In other words you admit that I never said anything like that. Good.
Why is this so difficult for you? I don't believe in God or Hell, so any reference to what I think about those two things other than non-belief is nonsense.
Your mind is close, you don't want to believe Christ is risen from the dead, is God, and is willing and able to save you from Hell so there is no way you can be saved.
Hahahahahha......yeah, right, you are mentally challenged.....that explains everything. I thought it was only that you were willfully closed minded, now I see that your brain is dead in some areas. I would not have wasted time with you if I knew your case was that hopeless.
Oh now I see your point of view, if only you had made this reasoned case backed up with clear justification from the very beginning we wouldn't have had to have this back and forth for so long.
You're desperate. You are right though, your arguments were a waste of time. Baseless, asinine, fallacious and vapid. Educate yourself, and then perhaps next time you'll be in a better position to engage in an actual discussion.
My point of view by your own words is that you are either totally closed minded, mentally challenged, or both......therefore it is a waste of time to try to get you to realize that you need to be and can be saved from Hell.
Those were your words, not mine. When did I say that?
You could try presenting a reasoned and valid argument, free of fallacies and then justify it. Why not give it a try? It's more effective than the threat of something I don't believe in or asserting that to not agree with you is tantamount to a mental disability.
You said you are mentally challenged so you don't know what I"m talking about. A five year old can understand what I am talking about, so I must conclude that something in your brain malfunctioned or never formed from around the time you were five years old. Either somebody hit you on the head with a rock and broke your brain, or you used that rock to build a mental block wall, or you were born with your brain not functioning so you are kind of like an idiot savant, able to recite the names of types of logical fallacies but unable to understand the word "God".
Try this, maybe it will help you: Try to justify your life.
You said you are mentally challenged so you don't know what I"m talking about.
Please demonstrate where I said this.
A five year old can understand what I am talking about,
Very much your demographic.
Either somebody hit you on the head with a rock and broke your brain, or you used that rock to build a mental block wall, or you were born with your brain not functioning so you are kind of like an idiot savant, able to recite the names of types of logical fallacies but unable to understand the word "God".
A false dichotomy I'm afraid. You haven't defined God yet. Maybe you should.
Try this, maybe it will help you: Try to justify your life.
Justify my life? It's practically axiomatic. I have to be alive in order to be having this conversation. Cogito ergo sum. This of course you mean justify in the sense of prove it to be true.
Except I haven't denied Gods existence. You have real difficulty with this don't you? If I don't believe in X it doesn't mean I think X is false. It's quite simple
Jimbo, you don't want any hope of eternal life, you don't want to believe Jesus conquered death and can get you out of it to keep you in Heaven, you won't listen to warnings of eternal damnation in the fire of Hell.......
You are losing everything in death, everything to you is a waste of time.......and you wish you could pull me down with you. Sorry, my sins are all forgiven and I'm bound for Heaven. It's too bad for you that you feel you don't need to be and don't want to be saved.
All of your education amounts to death, enjoy it while you can if you won't be saved from Hell.
So you do believe that you have a bigger mouth than God, since you insist He has not mouth to to His non-existence, therefore since your mouth is big it is bigger than His.....according to your closed minded and/or mentally challenged ways.
You heard the gospel....I was hoping to achieve proclaiming the gospel message to you. The message was given to you and I'm pretty sure you read it.......if you didn't, you can go back and read it. I have no further obligation.
Chuckle while God in His mercy gives you time in which you can chuckle...that's about the best you are going to get if you won't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why do all atheists say the same lame brained things....so they all sound alike. You talk and act, saying almost verbatim what hundreds of other atheists say.....it's like you are programmed....and it's a broken record that keeps repeating, a waste of time.
You are saying nothing new.....it's the junk I heard since I was five years old and now they pass it off as college credits. What a waste of time and money.
Stop questioning peoples religions, yes God is real, and yes, he isn't just some fairy tale. Why don't you ask whether or not Trump is a good Presedent or not... we all have different opinions.
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.
God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent.......not "All Good". God cannot be good to evil as evil cannot see God as being good. You are evil, that is why you try to frame God as not being good. Even though God is good to you, giving you time while your words and actions call for Him to end your time, you cannot see God's goodness and you can only talk about Him as if He were evil and you think you are better than Him.
That "God is all-good, or "omni-benevolent" rubbish was instigated by a Catholic.......Thomas Papenis or something like that. It is not in the Bible. The Catholic meant well as he tried to explain how it's good to know sinners will be imprisoned in Hell forever and not bother the living any more, but he coined that "omnibenevolent" mantra which adds to the confusion of people like you who are Hell bent on denying that God is righteous.
Do you realize that everything you are saying sounds like a robot, programmed? It's like somebody made a few hundred thousand copies of you and every time you get a string pulled by the thought of facing God in Judgement, you rattle off one or a few points from a list of about two dozen anti-Christian atheist rhetorical statements while your brain is shut down so you cannot accept reasonable contradiction to your beliefs.
There maybe some creator out there but who is that?
If the energy and mass is infinite that does mean god is not infinte? If evolution is true who creates the monkeys? If the creator will to be a creator is that because he have feelings?
If Jesus Christ is true "sheperd knows his sheep, the sheep knows his sheperd" then we know our creator. (His true to me, I can feel him yet not see or I just did not recognize )
Christianity, I expected it come after or in the time of Christ not before, "follower" of Christ unless they know Jesus Christ will come and what will he do, mostly prophet peach it because they have keep in touch with God
Adam = death and seperation from God,(I think) God is good if you are far away from God your far away from good | Jesus=savior and mediator between you and God,the life, the truth and the way. If your far from it then your far away.
This is just my curiousity and I am sharing my knowledge. No matter what our answers are it is too late, we are already created. (I still believe God loves you and me though)
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.
Israel does more than hint at the accuracy of the Bible, and the lining up of nations in alliances and desire to destroy Israel also does more than hint at the accuracy of the Bible. There are thousands of hints of Biblical accuracy in secular history, archeology, geology, physics, biology, astronomy....you have to believe in a lot of nonsensical things in order to ignore the accuracy of the Bible.
The question is this: Why is it "The God of Christianity" that you want to be non-existent? Is He the One who created all things, or are you trying to prove that things less than Him are not Him?
The god of Christianity and a belief in such is totally illogical .
The " word of god " is contained in the bible a deeply flawed , error filled book of contradictions where the " morality " of a perfect god changes from a jealous petty tyrant to a " gentler " God in the New Testament
While I accept like most credible historians the Historicity of Jesus I do not accept the "miracle " working version posited by Christians ; amusingly the family of Jesus thought him insane .
Believers mostly are a product of indoctrination so they didn't willingly embrace absurdity as it was foisted on them by indoctrinated parents and society ; to accept the god of Christianity is to bury your head in the sand and admit your acceptance of a totally irrational concept .......
Many gods such as the Christian God have contradictory characteristics that would make the god illogical if true. If a god has a contradictory nature by definition he not only does not exist but he can’t exist. For example just as a married bachelor or a square circle cannot exist because they have incompatible characteristics a god cannot exist if he also has incompatible characteristics. Here are 7 examples that show why the god of the Bible, the Tanakh, and the Qur'an cannot exist.
1. You cannot make the claim that god is omnipresent inside our space and time continuum or planes of existence ≠ while also claiming that god is transcendent outside of our space and time continuum and outside our planes of existence where he cannot be observed or tested. If any part of him exists outside of these parameters then that part does not exist. We live in the planes of existence. If your god does not exist within these parameters by definition he does not exist.
2. You cannot make the claim god is personal, has emotions, has sequences of thought and able to make decisions ≠ while also claiming he is changeless, timeless and eternal and immaterial. Being personal and having emotions and having sequences of thought occur as changes over time. But the god of the bible is supposed to be changeless and timeless. So there cannot be a personal, eternal God who makes decisions and who has emotions; if god exists, he is either a finite creature or impersonal.
3. You cannot make the claim that a god is all loving and all-powerful ≠ while also claiming this god created evil and allows evil to exist. If evil exists then why doesn’t this god who is all loving stop the evil.
4. You cannot make the claim a god is infinite in power or all-powerful ≠ while also claiming that the universe exists. The universe has energy and this energy of the universe would be taking away from god’s energy and power so we know that this god could not possibly be all-powerful since the universe has energy and power. If a god did have an infinite amount of power he would require an infinite amount of energy and mass. This infinite amount of energy and mass would result in a black hole that is infinite. Anything that has energy or mass that is not part of this black hole would prove that god is not of infinite power. In this case the universe has mass and energy and shows that god could not possibly have an infinite amount of power.
5. You cannot make the claim god is omniscient and knows the future ≠ while also claiming that he has free will and can change his mind. If a god does know the future then he could not change the future because his mind would already be made up so there would be nothing to change.
6. You cannot claim god is perfect ≠ while also claiming he is a creator. This is because being perfect means having no wants or needs so there would be no reason for him to create anything. If he needed to create something this would make him imperfect.
7. You cannot claim god is just ≠ while also claiming god is merciful. If god is just he is treating the person exactly how they deserve to be treated. If god is merciful he would be treating a person better than they deserve to be treated.
I've never understood "God exists outside of our space and time", it seems nonsensical to me. I've always considered existence to be a temporal concept, so what does it mean to exist for 0 seconds? Anyone have any idea?
My point was that existence is meaningless outside of time, it's temporal.
Let's imagine I was to say i had 1,000,000 dollars in my bank account for 0 seconds, what does that mean? It would mean that 1,000,000 dollars did not exist.
It is you who is closed minded. If you were not so closed minded, you would think it may be true that Jesus proved He is God by the fact that death could not hold Him in the ground. Then you would seek to understand How what He did applies to you.
I know the story is true, I know how it applies to me....and I know how it applies to you.......and your beliefs are pretty much mindless......half of your brain is shut down.
It is you who is closed minded. If you were not so closed minded, you would think it may be true that Jesus proved He is God by the fact that death could not hold Him in the ground. Then you would seek to understand How what He did applies to you.
I never said it was close minded, I said it seems nonsensical. Just read what somebody has written first, it's really easy to do.
How do you know Jesus rose from the dead? I would guess we're either going to get question begging or circular reasoning but I might be surprised.
I know the story is true, I know how it applies to me....and I know how it applies to you.......and your beliefs are pretty much mindless......half of your brain is shut down.
You make a knowledge claim. Knowledge is justified true belief, truth is that which conforms with reality. So please justify your claim and then demonstrate that it conforms with reality. We'll see if your claims to knowledge amount to anything but the usual nonsense.
I see you've resorted to ad hominem with your first reply. Any more fallacies you wish to fall foul of?
........if you are not closed minded, why is it so hard for you to think maybe Jesus really did rise bodily from the dead, proving He is God, the Son of God, who has the power to give you eternal life?
How do I know Jesus rose from the dead?
1) Eyewitness accounts and secular historical records mentioning some key events.
2) He proved He is God before He rose from the dead by the miracles he did. I didn't really see or believe that He was God for most of my life, and I didn't understand how what He die applies to me. Then I realized He must be God because of what He did, and then I realized He was innocent and died in my place while I am the one who deserves to die and burn in Hell.....and I believed He did it for me and I fell on my face and He saved me.
3) The truth is from God....if it is not true that God gave Himself for our sins so that we could be saved from Hell, nothing in the world of in life makes any sense...the faith of God in Jesus Christ is the only logical explanation for life and reality.
You have played your ad hominem game from the start....get off your high horse of phony intellectualism in which you allow yourself to do everything wrong which you accuse others of. What a shame the colleges today teach kids ten words around "fallacy" and show the kids how to overuse those words ad nauseum (don't know if I spelled that right...it's just puky when you toss around your fallacy cliche's and act like you think you scored a point every time).
I remember being taught evolution before I could read. The nice atheists went to the trouble of putting it in picture form so that preschool children can understand. I also remember, later than preschool, hearing about how Jesus had rose from the dead...came back to life in and with His body...easy for a child to understand and I liked the idea....since I was old enough to understand death, it was nice to know somebody had conquered it so maybe I could do the same. I had no problem understanding that our calendar is based on the time of His life, and because of who He was and what He did we have counted the years for 2000 years and going....
I simply believed the reports........to an extent, not fully, I didn't wholeheartedly believe but I sure liked the idea.
I wholeheartedly believed when I realized I am the one who deserves to die, and Jesus took my place in death so that He can bring me to His place in His resurrection. I know I am going to Heaven and I know I will have a new body, and one day the remains of this old rotten corpse will return to life with me in Christ by His power.
I believed the good news, which is the gospel.....the word gospel means good news.........and I got saved.
The point to point progression of logic is clear.....if you say it's not, you are only insulting and playing your "fallacy" cards to avoid using your own brain.
All you do is insult me and you reek of arrogance and somehow you deny it. You act this way because you are afraid of the truth..which is that we all deserve to die and burn in Hell forever. You can't allow for such possibility because of your pride....your own pride is taking you to Hell.
When you ask me to justify my claim, do you realize that you are saying that the only way you will believe Hell imprisons sinners forever is to find yourself in the fire, roasting forever?
Yes it is nonsensical , as I said , we live in the planes of existence. If your god does not exist within these parameters by definition he does not exist.
"you want game programmers to exist within the programmed game's time frame and space?
if you never went to school i urge you to start from Nursery.
If you already did, please be humble to start again."
Says the one that's made several rudimentary grammatical errors.
If you don't understand the context of a discussion do us all the courtesy of not involving yourself. We're discussing the four dimensions of time and space in the context of this reality.
You are not here to correct me, you have been on my tail lately, because lately, i have made you endure serious submission finishes in recent argument encounters and you are only here to avenge....
get over it dude...you are not the only guy i give a hangover after an argument....
there are so many i am hanging over now(remedy; ignore)....
I even made dermot run for 3months,
Been more than two months since i made JatinNagpal run though he sends me private messages(sept.- oct.) demanding for my soul;lol that guy is lost it.
In the first week wolfgang arrived, he and another new guy declared me enemy.
Minttea, Atrag the gay Amarel can't stand me and aside is my well organised grammar, etc.. etc...
you are wasting your time with me....
your life should be better without me....
i can only make you miserable; i still haven't run out of shocks...
You cannot reason , spell or construct a sentence that makes sense ; Ghanaians are renowned as being the stupidist of the Africans but you take national stupidity to a whole new level
I'm amused that an idiot like you who seriously suggested that humans were evolving into hamburgers 🍔🍔🍔and who imagines I left C D , when in fact it was you who fled after miserably failing the ridiculously easy Ghanaian school exams and were so ashamed you disappeared for 4 months
You are living proof of reincarnation. No one could possibly get to be so stupid in just one lifetime.
Then debate me. You will either win, lose and admit it, or lose and not admit it. I really hope you'll have the integrity to admit if you lose and that your mind has changed on the issue.
(It weird the way you say debate me, sounds as if you are demanding for sex.... just go ahead and ask your questions of course we are on a debate website and on a topic for nothing than debating )
I really hope you'll have the integrity to admit if you lose and that your mind has changed on the issue.
There is no losing in the quest for truth as long as it's objective and not politically/(for conveniency) biased.
And i know what am talking about not think because no body told me, i found out by myself.
To the topic.
In a different argument thread on this same topic, you cited an article on DNA/RNA.
I made my reply, you didn't reply back. So i do not know your stand on that. If it was clear enough to you and should you grant it as valid(State of patheism), then i can go ahead to explain why it must be(Most probable) the God of Christianity.
It was fairly self evident that english was not your first language. But you know this, so why jump to conclusions about the context of a conversation or what somebody meas when you know yourself that you don't hold a firm grasp of the language being used?
If you had any knowledge on game programming ; setting, timing, etc. you wouldn't be talking this ignorant....
But you know this, so why jump to conclusions about the context of a conversation or what somebody meas when you know yourself that you don't hold a firm grasp of the language being used?
I judged not your content grammar(your issue with me) but rather the context(sense it makes).
No matter how poor my construction is, i can never misunderstand a context.
Very well then, explain. Don't just assert.
I already did. I asked must game programmers also live their lives within their games using the same time frame and space to prove they also exist?
God fits programmer....Mindful Genetic coding is His program.
you are ignorant of programming...that is your problem..
you are the first calling this invalid.
The moderator of this debate did get the point i was tryna make
(not only him as this is not the first time i am arguing on this with someone, you're just the first without the requisite knowledge; ignorance/illiteracy)
and he was ready for us to talk more on it...ready to flow.
But as you are ignorant, you say it's invalid.... i won't blame you...
you are ignorant of programming...that is your problem..
So you keep saying, but you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge on the subject.
The moderator of this debate did get the point i was tryna make
(not only him as this is not the first time i am arguing on this with someone, you're just the first without the requisite knowledge; ignorance/illiteracy)
Appeal to popularity and genetic fallacy in one succinct paragraph. You really are a fool.
But as you are ignorant, you say it's invalid.... i won't blame you...
So you keep saying, but you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge on the subject.
Your ignorance is not my burden.
I looked through several posts here and i realise another guy is making the same argument i am but not using the Coding aspect, perhaps he is also not exposed to that.
press" Ctrl + U" on this website or any other to see how it was made.
(if you have a code editor like intelliJ Idea, you change it to what you want; names, titles etc. you can download "processing app" to create games)
Bill gates admitted God exists without knowing he has when he made a comment on DNA and Coding.
His is just not as expanded or elaborative as mine.
This is not a platform to explain Coding/programming etc...long talk before i finally make my point...
if you had some basic knowledge(half a book page)on it, we would have made it far....
as at now you rely on your limited knowledge to make judgements about the existence of a creator(pity)...reffered to as God specifically that of christianity.
Albert einstein, Thomas edison knew this even before artificial coding began that is why they were pantheists what the fuck are you saying?
Bill gates admitted God exists without knowing he has when he made a comment on DNA and Coding.
His is just not as expanded or elaborative as mine.
You haven't elaborated or expanded beyond your original point. I've explained why your analogy was invalid and you have yet to actually address the point. You just keep making the same fallacious proclamation that I don't understand what I'm talking about in lieu of dealing with my point.
if you had some basic knowledge(half a book page)on it, we would have made it far....
as at now you rely on your limited knowledge to make judgements about the existence of a creator(pity)...reffered to as God specifically that of christianity.
I've read an awful lot of books that bear far more relevance to the existence of God than one on programming or coding. If you think you have some proof then you need to demonstrate it. Asserting that god exists and then offering no justification is fallacious.
Albert einstein, Thomas edison knew this even before artificial coding began that is why they were pantheists what the fuck are you saying?
I didn't mention Einstein or Edison. You're either confusing me for somebody else or appealing to authority. I'm not sure which.
You haven't elaborated or expanded beyond your original point.
I have done better than gates.
But i can't go any further when you don't seem to know the basics of what i talk about.
I can explain the basics but it is too much work for me.
The moderator of this debate seem to understand the basics so it is he i can go the extra mile with......
When i posted my first dispute asking common sense questions based on such common knowledge, from your reply it was apparent you were entirely ignorant about programming independently, and also it's relationship with DNA/Genetic Coding.
The original point had nothing to do with DNA/genetic coding at all. Do you only have one argument that you try and flex to apply to any situation?
It was about existence as a temporal concept. Nothing to do with coding and nothing to with genetics. It was a discussion about the term existence in the absence of time. Essentially a discussion about language which is probably why you didn't understand it. Which returns me to my initial reply to you about not understanding context.
Essentially a discussion about language which is probably why you didn't understand it
Poor excuse. Invalid.
The original point had nothing to do with DNA/genetic coding at all.
Yes, i introduced this alone from a perspective worthy of destroying your side of the argument. But required something essential from you before i elaborate; which is you having some " basic knowledge" of the angle i come from.
It was a discussion about the term existence in the absence of time
Yes, which you believe is impossible and it's absurd for believers to say God exists within that space of timelessness?
And i counter that saying it is possible and it is clearly demonstrated in programming, specifically game programming.
How games are made.
let a Video Game represent Represent the universe.
Containing characters such as humans.
Settings like land space within the game and uncontrollable principles like seasons and specifically the main point, Time.
Whatever is in a game is designed by the programmer.
There is a different time frame and space for characters in a game than that of the programmer.
The human programmer is independent of that time set for characters of the game.
So if God is a programmer(that is of our entire universe as if in a game), he also by 100% possibly exist in the absence of time; the time frame we the human characters use. Perhaps time is only a product he specifically designed for man only.
How do we prove God is a programmer?
Genetic coding in DNA is the most sophisticated programming no human can ever achieve.
Must it necessarily need God?
No, but needs a Mind due to the level of orderliness(there is evidence of mindfulness all over it) in it. That mind if you want,(i want) can call God.
Yes, i introduced this alone from a perspective worthy of destroying your side of the argument. But required something essential from you before i elaborate; which is you having some " basic knowledge" of the angle i come from
You require me to accept your premises in order for your argument to be sound. In the absence of me accepting your premises you need to demonstrate they are true. Instead of doing this you chose to assert that not accepting your premises is synonymous with a lack knowledge. This is essentially saying that your premises will be accepted by anyone with "sufficient knowledge". Can you demonstrate this?
Yes, which you believe is impossible and it's absurd for believers to say God exists within that space of timelessness?
No, I said it seems non-sensical to use the term "exists" or "existence" in the absence of time. That is to say that the term presupposes time and space. That's not to say God is impossible, it's more that I don't believe exists is the correct term to use in the context of a God who allegedly exists outside of time and space. Context.
At last you put forward an actual argument. Well, let us begin:
let a Video Game represent Represent the universe.
We're done on premise 1. This is in principle impossible, as such a game would require more memory than atoms that exist in the universe. The complexity increases exponentially with the number of particles being simulated. If you're saying you could create a mere representation, that's fine, but you cannot apply the same principles to our reality as the game and thus cannot claim this world or the characters exist.
Containing characters such as humans.
Can you create a program that accurately simulates human behavior? If you can I recommend getting in touch with the Nobel committee, because you have invented true artificial intelligence.
Settings like land space within the game and uncontrollable principles like seasons and specifically the main point, Time.
Self contradictory. If these things are uncontrollable then how have you developed a program to accurately simulate these phenomenon?
Perhaps time is only a product he specifically designed for man only.
Yes, perhaps. My point was that by the definition we have for existence, the term would be insufficient to ascribe to God in this scenario. It says nothing about the possibility, just the term existence may not be the correct one, which is what I've been saying all long.
You require me to accept your premises in order for your argument to be sound.
Wrongly put.
Do you understand the language you highlighted?
This is essentially saying that your premises will be accepted by anyone with "sufficient knowledge". Can you demonstrate this?
Yes. and it is demonstrated in the moderators ability to comprehend and willingness(he actually proposed it) to make us go further without having me to explain anything further about that knowledge to him(at least not as much as i have explained to you).
I dropped my reasoning, he agreed without questioning(opposite of what you are doing) and he also made a new proposal to take us to the next step.
Still very stuck with you though. You know why right?
No, I said it seems non-sensical to use the term "exists" or "existence" in the absence of time.
So i ask, what if time is just a product of/for man and in the dimension in which God lives doesn't require time.
Time is human culture, when we sleep, eat, go to work, excellent delivery/execution of work to customers by timing .
If God doesn't sleep, Go to work, nothing asuch in his dimension, why should he be timing? Did he create time or time created him? Who obeys the other? (What is time at all??).
Let's say God is like the clock on the wall, which doesn't go to work, have a date with his girlfriend, not going to clubs, not picking up a child at school but just hangs on the wall, though you can read time through him(function of a clock) but does the clock it self need timing?? When In him/it time exists....??
. This is in principle impossible, as such a game would require more memory than atoms that exist in the universe. The complexity increases exponentially with the number of particles being simulated. If you're saying you could create a mere representation, that's fine, but you cannot apply the same principles to our reality as the game and thus cannot claim this world or the characters exist.
Too much.
You are going to far.
Lets take a simple game as GRAND THEFT.
And consider yourself as the programmer/maker of the game.
Now attention on the game:
Per your design, the game characters enjoy a limited amount of geographical space, you program seasons and day & night for game characters, places such as beautiful natural sceneries, food for game characters to eat within the game environment provided/programmed by you.
After creating a game, must you the creator/programmer also be bound by the time frame in the game you programmed for the use of the game characters???(to prove you exist?)
Or you are independent of that time, that is; you exist in the absence of that time?
Self contradictory. If these things are uncontrollable then how have you developed a program to accurately simulate these phenomenon?
I am not saying it is uncontrollable for the programmer but the characters within the game.
No this is how logic actually works. An argument is valid if when the premises are true, the conclusion must be true in all possible worlds. It also needs to be free from fallacies to be considered valid. Validity is good, but it does not mean the premises or the conclusion is true.
This is why you want a valid AND sound argument. An argument is sound when your premises are accepted as true by both parties or you can demonstrate them to be true. This is logic 101.
Yes. and it is demonstrated in the moderators ability to comprehend and willingness(he actually proposed it) to make us go further without having me to explain anything further about that knowledge to him(at least not as much as i have explained to you).
I dropped my reasoning, he agreed without questioning(opposite of what you are doing) and he also made a new proposal to take us to the next step.
So one person accepted your premise? Does that mean that everybody with "sufficient knowledge" would? How about people with "greater knowledge"?. Not that it matters I suppose, an argument will stand or fall on its own merits irrelevant of how many people believe it or accept it.
So i ask, what if time is just a product of/for man and in the dimension in which God lives doesn't require time.
Time is human culture, when we sleep, eat, go to work, excellent delivery/execution of work to customers by timing .
If God doesn't sleep, Go to work, nothing asuch in his dimension, why should he be timing? Did he create time or time created him? Who obeys the other? (What is time at all??).
Let's say God is like the clock on the wall, which doesn't go to work, have a date with his girlfriend, not going to clubs, not picking up a child at school but just hangs on the wall, though you can read time through him(function of a clock) but does the clock it self need timing?? When In him/it time exists....??
I'll explain again. My point was that the term exists might not be the right adjective in the context of a God who is said to be outside of time and space. This is because existence as we understand it is a temporal concept, it presupposes space and time. I'm not asserting that God is impossible or necessarily needs to abide by the same space and time.as we do.
Lets take a simple game as GRAND THEFT.
And consider yourself as the programmer/maker of the game.
Now attention on the game:
Per your design, the game characters enjoy a limited amount of geographical space, you program seasons and day & night for game characters, places such as beautiful natural sceneries, food for game characters to eat within the game environment provided/programmed by you.
After creating a game, must you the creator/programmer also be bound by the time frame in the game you programmed for the use of the game characters???(to prove you exist?)
Or you are independent of that time, that is; you exist in the absence of that time?
Yes the game designer exists independently from the game world. The problem is the game world and all its environments and characters do not exist as we know that game world is not objective reality. It doesn't fit the definition.
I am not saying it is uncontrollable for the programmer but the characters within the game.
I take your meaning. But surely for the characters every aspect of the game world, including there own actions, aren't under their control.
An argument is sound when your premises are accepted
It is not accepted because of ignorance. You lacked some essential knowledge to finance your judgement. That doesn't make it invalid...it rather makes you a burden...ignorance.
So one person accepted your premise?
Yes on this debate. There was another guy who didn't express his stand but came to define a few terms but not refuting the entire context of the premise. Why not? if he thought it isn't correct. (The truth is he can't stand me and would never do anything to my benefit, he would rather let it be than affirm my position....predictable)
On a different debate with Mack, when i thought that was what he was driving at, i managed to make him admit this(i achieved it) but he was asking a bigger question.
But it infuriated Quantumhead when he saw i was at the peak of proving God exists....he then came in with a challenge where i had to prove the make up of the universe is as mindful as a game before my point would be granted, i managed to do that but he didn't have the dignity to admit it when i was done, his ego wouldn't let him, but it was apparent when he couldn't throw any further challenge....
How about people with "greater knowledge"?.
There is no greater knowledge in programming. It is as limited as knowledge on breakfast.
The any better you can get is high experience after doing the same thing over and over again, how innovative or creative you are to create more beautiful works(than competitors/colleagues) with same limited knowledge, famaliarity with other people's works so you can plagiarize, customize and make it your own for easy and fast work....
There is no greater mind anywhere....
I know and say this even though i consider myself just a kid in it.
The problem is the game world and all its environments and characters do not exist as we know that game world is not objective reality.
'If' our universe is to God like the game world and God lives in a society similar to human's(like game world is similar to ours) but in a bigger state, his fellows would be saying the same as they wonder about their existence and if they were created. They would definitely also say the human universe is less objective as they know the level of control they have over us as compared to their higher level of freedom and also say we are of less quality since he/they must be better than us to have created us.
Bill gates Says DNA genetic coding is the most sophisticated coding humans can never achieve.
Should characters in a game be liberated through advancement in our software capabilities to also partake in their own programming, they can also never be as good as we are.
Also, since game era began, programmers periodically, by advancement have been able to liberate game characters more and more to perform more human functions they couldn't do before.
Like in soccer games, after a game character has scored a goal, it has several goal celebration moves/options at it's disposal without being controlled by a human player.
There are more games with more liberation for characters now to act as normal humans....it doesn't end here, give it a decade...Game Revolution...Characters evolution.
there own actions, aren't under their control.
Buy some modern games especially about ancient rome war times...caesar, Alexander etc...and see the level of freedom/liberation game characters have now as compared to the last you played one....
It is not accepted because of ignorance. You lacked some essential knowledge to finance your judgement. That doesn't make it invalid...it rather makes you a burden...ignorance.
I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was un-sound. You need to demonstrate what you say is true otherwise it remains a baseless assertion. Just saying it is ignorant to not accept your premise is fallacious.
'If' our universe is to God like the game world and God lives in a society similar to human's(like game world is similar to ours) but in a bigger state, his fellows would be saying the same as they wonder about their existence and if they were created. They would definitely also say the human universe is less objective as they know the level of control they have over us as compared to their higher level of freedom and also say we are of less quality since he/they must be better than us to have created us.
Accept game characters don't exist. We covered this. Nor does the world they inhabit. By definition.
Like in soccer games, after a game character has scored a goal, it has several goal celebration moves/options at it's disposal without being controlled by a human player.
Buy some modern games especially about ancient rome war times...caesar, Alexander etc...and see the level of freedom/liberation game characters have now as compared to the last you played one....
But they are still pre-programmed. They have not made any decisions.
Just saying it is ignorant to not accept your premise is fallacious.
That is for the kind of person you are. And i'm not saying accept it in that state of ignorance. It is my work to explain. I did a bit but you still don't get it. I find it too much hardwork to start from scratch to ...............
Accept game characters don't exist
You are somehow exaggerating my presentation and that subtracts from the point i am tryna make.
Who said Game character are alive?
The point is based on the two different worlds of the programmer and the character existing under different time concepts that is; independent of each other and relating that to how God must definitely be living independent in the abscence of our time.
And to prove we are not some random careless materials , we should turn to look at our genetic makeup in DNA that exhibits extreme sophisticated orderliness that must require a mind to have been possible.
And that mind, is God.
And the accurate knowledge of the dimension he exists in is not necessary to affirm his existence when the evidence/signature is in our make up itself.
But they are still pre-programmed. They have not made any decisions.
That was just a compliment to the progress that have been made over the years in programing...doesn't really contribute (perhaps 20percent) to this argument.
That is for the kind of person you are. And i'm not saying accept it in that state of ignorance. It is my work to explain. I did a bit but you still don't get it. I find it too much hardwork to start from scratch to ...............
An explanation is supposed to help one understand. That's the point of an explanation. If the person you are engaging with doesn't understand then you haven't explained a thing.
You are somehow exaggerating my presentation and that subtracts from the point i am tryna make.
Who said Game character are alive?
That was meant to be the point of your analogy. We were discussing the term existence in the absence of space and time. You offered the game creator/game analogy to show that existence can be independent of space and time. But if the world/characters are not alive and do not have objective reality then they do not exist. So the analogy doesn't hit the mark in this context.
And to prove we are not some random careless materials , we should turn to look at our genetic makeup in DNA that exhibits extreme sophisticated orderliness that must require a mind to have been possible.
If you're referring to evolution when you say random then all I can tell you is that the selection process is not at all random. This is why there are predictable patterns.
DNA is not all that sophisticated depending on your reference point. It's prone to errors, there's sections that don't do anything and the processes involved in gene expression and copying are inefficient from a top down perspective.
So the analogy doesn't hit the mark in this context.
you are arguing something different rather than what i present.
Mine is about the possibility of differences between the world of a game and it's programmer's and just that is a good example to presume God and man's universe can exist in the same accord. Point made. But if you want to argue existence and thorough(which is not possible) objectiveness, i have some examples too...
this is where you ask...
But if the world/characters are not alive and do not have objective reality then they do not exist.
But do you know the end of every has a predictable end?
And God in the bible predicts to the end of our world?(Nebuchadnezzar's dream about world power, inventions, specific wars etc. came to pass, and more)
This makes both worlds unobjective but subjective to the programmer's/creator's vision.
Yes you can argue but humans do what they want and different from the lifestyle in games.
But you didn't make yourself like to eat meat,vegetables/fruits, and water. You didn't make yourself to depend on oxygen for survival.
You didn't make yourself have 2legs and 1leg only(proved very useful and intelligent though, what if it was only one)
You were born this way. You were programmed this way by whatever.
This is what designers do.
You think you speak what you want from your own mind's wishes? How sure are you?
King Cyrus(backed by history)after king nebuchadnezzar was controlled by God to say He is great and the israelites should go and build their temple for Him(Backed by persian History).
If you understand the magnitude of Kingship and power and say whatever he pleased and the kind of Pagan worshipper he was, this should blow your mind, i mean it's crazy. He shouldn't have said that. Nobody tells him what to say. But who are you to say no when your programmer/Creator puts you on a mission to do something. You just everyself control and you will say whatever he wants you to say it doesn't matter if you are a king/president of the whole world. And the it is different from the ordinary person who is living free and not understand that overwhelming power.
It is the same in games.
When playing GTA, you have your eyes on one guy through which you want to fulfill the mission whom you are controlling with overwhelming power.
But in the game you also find a lot of free characters doing whatever they please(they are ignorant they are programmed).
You find them in clubs, shops, golf parks, gunshops, on the streets and they jump out of the way by themselves when you are driving carelessly(they usually appear to have no mission in the game and have full control), some gangstars that will never shoot anyone except you without you doing anything to provoke them or get their attention without you controlling them etc......
There are so many free souls in games like on earth.
In other games it's better, you can choose whatever personality and the rest will be free acting too human.
If you're referring to evolution
No.
DNA is not all that sophisticated depending
If you had any idea how coding is, you wouldn't say this about DNA and this is not admitted by lowly intelligent people but even people like bill gates.
Yes people who code also make errors. If you should copy this website's source code and paste it in an editor, you will find so many errors but it comes out just fine ,doesn't it??
so what does it mean to exist for 0 seconds? Anyone have any idea?
If you exist outside of time you could theoretically observe all of time just by looking at the universe. But it's just Christians being idiots again. Every time you prove them wrong they change their beliefs to something else. When historians and scientists first began picking apart the Bible the parables in it suddenly became allegorical rather than literal. And of course, as far as they are concerned, no evidence of God inside time and space clearly means he lives outside of time and space.
It is understandable given the superstitious nature of human beings that you would have this view of Christianity. You clearly have issue with a lot of superstitions, but that is what they are, superstitions.
1. The God of Christianity is "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". God by necessity is present everywhere, as The Supreme and Ultimate Reality would have to be there with anything that exists. Otherwise, such a reality could not be supreme and ultimate. There is no secret place from God. Literally everything exists in God. If you don't know what you are looking for, you don't know what you are seeking. If you don't have any knowledge about what you are testing for,how can you come to a meaningful conclusion? Believe that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and adjust your ponderings accordingly.
2. God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
God is personal, we all have a unique experience. God has made every decision. God's will is what is done. That is God's omnipotence. God is always The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, The One who binds creation to time while being Lord of it. God is neither a finite creature or impersonal. God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
3. It is said that when humanity partook from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil", this was when our fall occurred.
The moral of this story is that when we took ourselves as being the rightful judges of good and evil, we lost our direction. The only rightful judge of good and evil is God. God is the judge.
Everything was and is created by God, and as it is written in scripture, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
4. God is The Singularity!
5. God's mind doesn't change, but our perceptions of God's mind do.
6. How can you say there is no reason to create anything when creation is clearly before you? God created everything, and that is how it is. It is the nature of God to create. Seems perfect to me.
7. Sometimes people get treated better than they feel the deserve. Sometimes people get treated better than what others feel they deserve. God is always just, but to us it appears merciful.
Anyone who is keenly aware of their own sin should feel forgiven much regardless of how clean they believe their life to be.
God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, there is no other! Turn from your wicked ways and believe The Truth! The good news! God is Salvation!
Here we go again with your failed argument from assertion ; your insane bullshit Deepak Chopra style argument has been dismissed by 18 people so far on C D , so carry on making an idiot of yourself
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
Concerning number 3 god did not create evil he let it exist , but as you said how can he be all loving and all powerfull if he let that happen? God gave us the freedom to choose between right and wrong :we wouldnt merit to go to heaven if we didnt have a choice. It is because of this choice we can make that we are free. If evil didnt exist it would be like if your mother tied you in a chair for hours and when she came she congratulated you for being a good boy ; you are free because you have the possibility to burn the house down ( sorry if there are grammar faults i am still learning english)
the problem with these quotes from the bible is that I dont know wich one you are using ( catholic, protestant etc), if the translation is correct and the context....
This is one of the problems I was speaking about, KJV is a protestant bible and I as a catholic dont recognize it and could argue that it is a false bible thats was created to justify the englicanist heresy... Thats the problem with quoting the Bible we are entering into a whole new debate
I'm a former Catholic myself , no I've no problem quoting the bible I'm well versed on it , it's funny that on Catholic forums the question about god creating evil comes up from time to time and you're unaware of it being in your version of the bible ?
Incidentally the Hebrew word for evil is Ra meaning moral evil , a fair few bibles over the years have changed the word evil into something more palatable
Again which Bible? because it certainly isnt in mine... And the god depicted in the Bible is not evil (at least in the official catholic Bible) and what I said earlier didnt come from me but from here: https://www.franciscanmedia.org/ask-a-franciscan-did-an-all-good-god-create-evil/ I hope you will be able to find your answers in there
I asked a priest about that, actually you were right : God did create evil as he is the creator of everything, but God doesnt do evil "Christians have long understood evil to not be a thing that exists in itself. "Evil" doesn't have being on its own. Light is something that exists, and darkness is the absence of light. So evil is a privation that exists in something that does have being" (quote from your link that sums it upp pretty well) . As for if god is evil thats a question for another debate, but still thanks for the link!
Wait are you saying that you believe that god exists and that he is evil? Or do you mean that the god portrayed in the bible is evil? and you dont believe in Him
