Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That could be said of your beliefs also, no? We all have decided what we believe, based on the evidence.
Religious claims.
Jewish Yahweh.
Trinity Yahweh.
None trinitarian Yahweh.
Bad Yahweh of the gospel of John versus the father of Jesus.
Bramah.
That Chinese god that vomits poison on his enemies (plus all the other Chinese gods).
And so on for around 4,000 gods.
No origin for those laws? How can laws be put in place without a starter of some sort?
Again? Sigh, OK. If something exists, it must have behaviours and properties, regardless of ... Eh, get those fingers out of your ears. Shall we try again? If something exists, it must have behaviours and properties, regardless of it's origin. They do not come from anywhere, they are a property of existence itself. So they do not require a god.
But “we don’t know-it all just happened†makes perfect sense.
Yes, as we have evidence snowflakes form through natural processes. No intelligence required. Other natural processes too. Things happening seems to be normal behavior. This is the evidence we have, whereas you have ...?
So far we have a few assertions, a few fallacies, and the fact you find it difficult to grasp (or remember) arguments you do not like.
Because the different gods are evidence they are all made up. Including yours. Because if we had evidence for your god, we would expect the different religions to be closer to each other based on that evidence.
That's the dumbest statement I've ever heard yet in my life. You have no arguments against a creator, so AGAIN you try to divide God into different religions and destroy him that way.
That's the dumbest statement I've ever heard yet in my life. You have no arguments against a creator, so AGAIN you try to divide God into different religions and destroy him that way.
Sorry, Oz. But the above is the dumbest statement I've ever seen you make. And there have been a LOT of worthy contenders.
That's the dumbest statement I've ever heard yet in my life.
Really? You do not understand a concept THAT simple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
You have no arguments against a creator, so AGAIN you try to divide God into different religions and destroy him that way.
I have given many arguments why a god is the least likely answer in this very thread. So try reading the thread instead of just making things up. Or did you not understand any of my arguments?
Really? You do not understand a concept THAT simple?
I have given many arguments why a god is the least likely answer in this very thread. So try reading the thread instead of just making things up. Or did you not understand any of my arguments?
I did, since you asked. But I can say that all I see are: Statements of Belief. No support given whatsoever. Your making a statement does not make it true just because you believe it. It is just your belief system, and even many religious fundamentalists seem to understand that better than you. They admit it's a belief. Many greater minds than either of us, such as Plato, have been arguing for the existence of a God since human life began. I would love to see the greatest atheist mind of today arguing with someone like Plato.
You offer zero evidence here, ZERO. And, I never mentioned scripture or a specific religion.
Here is Wikipedia's definition of "evidence."
Wikipedia
Evidence
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
It is possible to provide physical "evidence" for something which exists. But how does one provide evidence for something which does NOT exist? The best that can be done is to provide "circumstantial evidence" that supports the assertion one way or the other.
Here is a classic example of "evidence" that there is no God:
In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life, because imaginary Beings have no power over over physical events. If a wall falls on you make believe does not and can not serve as protection. Even for innocent children. Because in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable assumed to exist by the faithful God will invariably act in exactly the same manner as an imaginary Being who isn't actually there. A God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! Can you suggest a difference? This is as close to an empirical test for whether or not God actually exists as one might reasonably divise. And in these sorts of actual make or break tests, the circumstantial "evidence" for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.
I did, since you asked. But I can say that all I see are: Statements of Belief. No support given whatsoever. Your making a statement does not make it true just because you believe it. It is just your belief system, and even many religious fundamentalists seem to understand that better than you. They admit it's a belief. Many greater minds than either of us, such as Plato, have been arguing for the existence of a God since human life began.
Your inability to understand is the problem. Your problem. Or are you arguing ALL the gods actually exist? Because logically that can not be possible, as one of them is said to be the one and only. Which would mean THAT god can not exist. That THAT god is an invention.
If you are NOT saying that, then you are agreeing with me that the others gods are made up. Which increases the chance that making up gods is normal behavior, and that ALL gods are probably made up.
This is NOT a belief, this is how probability works. I should not need to explain this, this should be obvious to anyone willing to think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I would love to see the greatest atheist mind of today arguing with someone like Plato.
I bet you would not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
