The Creationist

[neil_]

  Why would a book being widely read make it true   

 

I didn’t say that. All I said is that there is a reason for that. And not an easy reason, because:

 

 

  All that proves is that it is liked   

 

No, buddy, that’s the point.

 

 

  You have no case that the Bible is the "ONLY" book that people don't like, or that not liking a book + a large audiance = truth.   

 

I didn’t say that.

 

 

   There is no evidence for God that doesn't assume he exists in the first place.  

 

Let’s settle this once and for all: who or what made the universe?

 

 

   If you assume some other deity exists, suddenly, all of that "evidecne" starts to point to something other than God.  

 

And if you assume no god exists then suddenly all evidence points to that…

 

Well, we’ve had our laugh, now let’s get serious again: you still haven’t explained how is it that cosmic expansion is mentioned in the Bible…

 

 

  And no, I am not trying to convince myself I am right. That's just you dismissing my point of view for your own comfort.  

 

Yes, you are. Only that you’re not willing to admit it. There are even several sentences written by you that clearly support that idea. But if you’re not willing to admit it now, you won’t be willing to admit it then, so let’s drop this.

 

And no, I’m not dismissing your point of view. I’m only saying WHY you have that point of view (which I don’t contest).

[neil_]

   What does it matter if I don't?  

 

Because you’re using the big bang theory to exclude God, that’s why.

 

 

   Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy. If I don't prove the big bang, that doesn't immediately prove God.  

 

I didn’t say otherwise. So you’re the one setting up “false dichotomy”.

 

 

   You lump everything into two groups of "God" and "everything else", and act like if anything that falls into the subset of "everything else" is proven wrong, that suddenly, somehow, the entire subset is proven wrong. That doesn't logically follow.  

 

Yes it does. Your entire set is this and this alone: chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, geological evolution, biological evolution.

 

If you wouldn’t have those, you wouldn’t be an atheist – because you claim “science” to be an atheist. But if it’s not “science” the reason for your atheism, then what is it?

 

 

  Now, if you prove that B is false, that doesn't automatically make A true. You also have to prove C, D, and E as false.   

 

Let’s do that. What are they?

 

 

 You haven't done that. 

 

Because you didn’t tell me what they are…

 

 

 

  Trying to say that an unanswered question proves God   

 

When have I ever said that? I think that you now showed repeatedly that you don’t reply to what I actually say, but to what you imagine that I say.

 

 

   Fleems are completely non-falsifiable.  

 

Therefore are not science, as defined by YOU, atheists.

 

 

  You cannot prove to me that they do not exist.   

 

No, but I just proved they are not science.

 

 

   So, if you disprove the big bang, now you have to prove to me that it was God (and by God, I mean your God YHWH, and not some other god like Allah or Odin) and not fleems that created everything. You cannot do that.  

 

If we use reason we can easily exclude improbable explanations. Such as yours.

 

 

 Stop with the false dichotomies.

 

I think that refers to you, not to me – as shown above.

 

 

   That being said, regardless of whether or not they are or are not widely accepted, I don't see how that proves Jesus. Especially if you're exlucing the parts about Jesus.  

 

Indeed, you don’t read what I actually write, but instead you imagine all sorts of things and then wrongly attribute them to me.

 

  The Quran posits that Jesus is a prophet (and cannot lie, by your own words), and that he is not the son of God or "the way".   

 

Therefore, the Quran is wrong (severe contradiction; moreover internal).

 

 

  Ergo, the Quran just proved itself right.   

 

No, that’s the point: it just proved itself wrong.

 

By the single fact that Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, the Quran falls.

 

 

   No, you haven't. It's been primarily falss dichotomies, changes of subject, cherry picking, and incorrect boolean algebra.  

 

Those “falss dichotomie” are entirely yours, as shown. As for “changes of subject”, how could you possibly acuse me of that since you DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT?

 

As for “incorrect boolean algebra”, I leave abstract conditions to you, and instead focus on reality.

 

But as I already said, I’m looking forward for you to identify those conditions, in order for me to prove them wrong. However, make sure you claim only things by which your atheism stands or falls. I don’t talk for the sake of talking.

[RobbyPants]

You have no case that the Bible is the "ONLY" book that people don't like, or that not liking a book + a large audiance = truth.

 

I didn’t say that.

You are right. I reread what you said and I overstated it.

 

 

There is no evidence for God that doesn't assume he exists in the first place.

 

Let’s settle this once and for all: who or what made the universe?

Fleems. Seriously. Prove it's not fleems. If you can't, then you cannot prove the only alternative is God without first assuming God.

 

 

If you assume some other deity exists, suddenly, all of that "evidecne" starts to point to something other than God.

 

And if you assume no god exists then suddenly all evidence points to that…

 

Well, we’ve had our laugh, now let’s get serious again: you still haven’t explained how is it that cosmic expansion is mentioned in the Bible…

It doesn't matter. Just because I don't have an answer to that question does not mean the only possible other answer is the Christian God. I used to believe that was the case when I was still Christian, because I was unwilling to consider any other possibilities. 

 

 

 

And no, I am not trying to convince myself I am right. That's just you dismissing my point of view for your own comfort.

 

Yes, you are. Only that you’re not willing to admit it. There are even several sentences written by you that clearly support that idea. But if you’re not willing to admit it now, you won’t be willing to admit it then, so let’s drop this.

 

And no, I’m not dismissing your point of view. I’m only saying WHY you have that point of view (which I don’t contest).

I could turn this 180 degrees and start telling you how you really feel, and that you're lying to yourself, but I won't. It's insulting and counter productive.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong on the grounds of a lack of evidence, and that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That being said, me being wrong doesn't automatically make you right. It could be Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even Fleems. I have a very open mind on the subject. Remember that for most of my life, I was not atheist, and during that time, I would not consider any alternatives.

You, on the other hand, are unwilling to consider any other alternatives.

[Ninevite]

 

I could turn this 180 degrees and start telling you how you really feel, and that you're lying to yourself, but I won't. It's insulting and counter productive.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong on the grounds of a lack of evidence, and that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That being said, me being wrong doesn't automatically make you right. It could be Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even Fleems. I have a very open mind on the subject. Remember that for most of my life, I was not atheist, and during that time, I would not consider any alternatives.

You, on the other hand, are unwilling to consider any other alternatives.

 

 

Ironically your open mind has no room for the "Christian God". My favorite part of your arguement is that it has to be anything other than the Christian God...hmmm?

 

This type of behaviour is very curious to me. Atheists are never quick to destroy other religions, no, they are very tolerant of them. Mention Christ and the atheist goes into a frothing-at-the-mouth tantrum as if he were demon possesed and a priest just splashed him with holy water. Very curious indeed.

 

Why is your hatred toward Christ and His followers, I wonder?

[RobbyPants]

 

I could turn this 180 degrees and start telling you how you really feel, and that you're lying to yourself, but I won't. It's insulting and counter productive.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong on the grounds of a lack of evidence, and that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That being said, me being wrong doesn't automatically make you right. It could be Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even Fleems. I have a very open mind on the subject. Remember that for most of my life, I was not atheist, and during that time, I would not consider any alternatives.

You, on the other hand, are unwilling to consider any other alternatives.

 

Ironically your open mind has no room for the "Christian God". My favorite part of your arguement is that it has to be anything other than the Christian God...hmmm?

 

Re-read what I said, in the part that you included in your quote. For most of my life I was a Christian. So, I did have an open mind for Christ, yet not for anything else. I am willing to consider other alternatives; any that happen to have evidence. I don't accept Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Scientology, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for the same reason I don't accept Christianity: I don't see any compelling evidence.

 

I am atheist because I have an open mind.

 

 

This type of behaviour is very curious to me. Atheists are never quick to destroy other religions, no, they are very tolerant of them. Mention Christ and the atheist goes into a frothing-at-the-mouth tantrum as if he were demon possesed and a priest just splashed him with holy water. Very curious indeed.

Several things:

1. Where have I attempted to destroy any religions? I simply don't accept them as true.
2. Why would I argue against Islam or Wicca on a Christian message board?
3. Whether or not some other unnamed atheists behave the way you say they do has no bearing on me, when I am not exhibiting those behaviors.
4. Regarding other atheists (although I can't speak for them), they likely target Christianity either because it's the religion they are familiar with and/or because it is the major religion where they live.

 So, don't take what other people may or may not be saying and then respond to me as if I'm doing the same thing. It's counter productive.

 

Why is your hatred toward Christ and His followers, I wonder?

Please, point to the part where I mentioned any hatred of Jesus or his followers in my post.

Edited September 10, 2013 by RobbyPants

[gray wolf]

The discussion seems to have moved from implications of the Cosmological Argument to the argument of Common Consent.  I would like to see it shifted back, given the resurgence of the Kalam argument these days.  The First Cause arguments have garnered some criticism (the supposed impossibility of infinites in the real Universe, insistence that there is ALWAYS a cause for an event), but the Argument always seems to me to be overkill.  If we do establish there is an uncaused first cause, there seems to be a tendency to say Oh!  This proves ethical monotheism.  It may indeed be the case, but there are other considerations for an uncaused cause.  We can, by faith, state that this is the case as well, but we cannot make a scientific case for it.

[Guest]

The discussion seems to have moved from implications of the Cosmological Argument to the argument of Common Consent.  I would like to see it shifted back,

 

 

The Cosmological Argument

 

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10

 

Think There Will Be

 

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

 

A Test

 

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10-11

 

~

 

Day

 

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

 

By Day

 

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:8

 

By Day

 

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:13

 

By Day

 

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:19

 

By Day

 

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Genesis 1:23

 

By Day

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

 

By Day

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

For

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Sure

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

~

 

The Order Of Things

 

The Big Bang Went From The Earth On Day One 

To The Sun, Moon And Stars On Day Four

To A Fellow And His Girl On Day Six

To A Day Off On Day Seven

 

Pretty Amazing Big Bang

But That's My LORD

Bless His Name  \o/

[Fez]

Comparing or equating in any way The Lord God to a Flying Spaghetti Monster is insulting, against the ToS and not why this forum was created. The next person disrespectful to The Lord God will also be banned from participating in this topic.