April 21, 20241 yr On 4/19/2024 at 1:08 PM, Arthur Jackson said: he said "creation" what a dumb F Provide an alternative to matter being created from nothing, then. That's the current self-defeating "intelligent" science argument.
April 21, 20241 yr 21 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Provide an alternative to matter being created from nothing, then. That's the current self-defeating "intelligent" science argument.
April 21, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Arthur Jackson said: Come on funny man, let's get scientific. All of the universe was created, how?
April 21, 20241 yr 23 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Come on funny man, let's get scientific. All of the universe was created, how?
April 22, 20241 yr 12 hours ago, Mike31mt said: Come on funny man, let's get scientific. All of the universe was created, how? We don’t know exactly how it was "created,”. but we have a good idea that it started with the "big bang.”
April 22, 20241 yr 2 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: We don’t know exactly how it was "created,”. but we have a good idea that it started with the "big bang.” How did the big bang start? What caused it? That's one of the essential proofs of God that even Arthur Jackson's hero Socrates came to realize.
April 22, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Mike31mt said: How did the big bang start? What caused it? That's one of the essential proofs of God that even Arthur Jackson's hero Socrates came to realize. How was God created? And how did whatever force that created God come to be?
April 22, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: How did the big bang start? What caused it? That's one of the essential proofs of God that even Arthur Jackson's hero Socrates came to realize. What part of "we don’t know” are you having the most trouble with? Absence of evidence is not evidence, it is an appeal to ignorance.
April 22, 20241 yr 10 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: What part of "we don’t know” are you having the most trouble with? Absence of evidence is not evidence, it is an appeal to ignorance. *You* don't know. And apparently you never will. There is evidence all around you, and the existence of God is far more logical than anything offered up by science. Again, this is why classical thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. all came to the conclusion that there is a God. Yet youre too smart. I'm sure you'll become a "Cultural Christian" like Richard Dawkins, too.
April 22, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: *You* don't know. And apparently you never will. There is evidence all around you, and the existence of God is far more logical than anything offered up by science. Again, this is why classical thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. all came to the conclusion that there is a God. Yet youre too smart. I'm sure you'll become a "Cultural Christian" like Richard Dawkins, too. Good bye Mike.
April 22, 20241 yr 27 minutes ago, Boogyman said: How was God created? And how did whatever force that created God come to be? God is eternal and existed before time and outside of time. No force created God. At some point there is a beginning of the Cause/Effect chain of events and that is God.
April 22, 20241 yr the book of creation from the bible was the amalgamation of various tails of the "creation" that had been passed down by the oral tradition until it was committed to paper (or whatever). the tales that survived to become Genesis were those that were compatible with the monotheistic god of Judaism. since humans (or their near relatives) gained cognition and the ability to communicate through speech they have asked about how things came to be. there were as many stories of the creation as there were campfires to sit around and discuss it, but those that survived did so largely for their ability to compliment some particular culture's government at the right time. literally the only evidence that the story of creation from the bible is any more accurate than Brahma, Odin, Oyamatsumi, or any other is the bible itself telling you it's so and taking it as an article of faith. at least the theory of the big bang has a scientific basis, and it's been revised as more information is factored in. arguing that just "existing" is evidence of a creator is fine, but it's a matter of faith - period. arguing it as a fact and trying to draw someone into naval gazing to ignore the broader issues.
April 22, 20241 yr so just checking for lynched1, incest isn't cool any longer, right? i mean it sure was in the beginning.
April 22, 20241 yr 5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: the book of creation from the bible was the amalgamation of various tails of the "creation" that had been passed down by the oral tradition until it was committed to paper (or whatever). the tales that survived to become Genesis were those that were compatible with the monotheistic god of Judaism. since humans (or their near relatives) gained cognition and the ability to communicate through speech they have asked about how things came to be. there were as many stories of the creation as there were campfires to sit around and discuss it, but those that survived did so largely for their ability to compliment some particular culture's government at the right time. literally the only evidence that the story of creation from the bible is any more accurate than Brahma, Odin, Oyamatsumi, or any other is the bible itself telling you it's so and taking it as an article of faith. at least the theory of the big bang has a scientific basis, and it's been revised as more information is factored in. arguing that just "existing" is evidence of a creator is fine, but it's a matter of faith - period. arguing it as a fact and trying to draw someone into naval gazing to ignore the broader issues. The scientific basis of the Big Bang still can't offer a single reason or source of the creation, can it? Forget the Bible stories, you or anyone else on the planet can't come up with a single logical source of the creation of the universe other than God. Its far more logical than the Big Bang, by science's own laws and rules.
April 22, 20241 yr 23 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: God is eternal and existed before time and outside of time. No force created God. At some point there is a beginning of the Cause/Effect chain of events and that is God. BS lmao. This response is even more hypocritical than you getting your tubes tied lmao.
April 22, 20241 yr Just now, Boogyman said: BS lmao. This response is even more hypocritical than you getting your tubes tied lmao. It's only BS because you can't counter the logic because it's so basic and obviously true, and you don't want to admit agnosticism is a pure copout. At some point, there was a beginning. Things didn't just exist. Matter can't appear from nothing, and events don't cause themselves.
April 22, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Boogyman said: BS lmao. This response is even more hypocritical than you getting your tubes tied lmao. lol he actually said that? On 4/19/2024 at 1:15 PM, JohnSnowsHair said: oh joy, a first cause argument! I'll go first: who created the creator!??! ^^ yup. mUh FiRsT cAuZe. ChEcKmAtE aThIeStZ!!
April 22, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: lol he actually said that? ^^ yup. mUh FiRsT cAuZe. ChEcKmAtE aThIeStZ!! More hilarious jokes to avoid the topic. And you certainly can't defend the very basic notions that have been laid before you for centuries. You're relying on science when it literally disproves the entire notion of spontaneous creation of the universe. I'll post this again for you all: For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.q Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.r As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.s While claiming to be wise,t they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes
April 22, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Forget the Bible stories Unless we're talking about the gays, in which case, the bible stories are to be quoted ad nauseum.
April 22, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Unless we're talking about the gays, in which case, the bible stories are to be quoted ad nauseum. Here comes the "Christian" again, taking the opposing stance for the millionth time. I could very easily make similar arguments about homosexuality without ever referencing the Bible.
April 22, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Here comes the "Christian" again, taking the opposing stance for the millionth time. I could very easily make similar arguments about homosexuality without ever referencing the Bible. I bet you could
April 22, 20241 yr 22 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: It's only BS because you can't counter the logic because it's so basic and obviously true, and you don't want to admit agnosticism is a pure copout. At some point, there was a beginning. Things didn't just exist. Matter can't appear from nothing, and events don't cause themselves. There's nothing to counter, hypocrite.
April 22, 20241 yr Mike not realizing he's no different than early people thinking a volcano eruption was "the gods showing their anger" is gonna be entertaining all day.
April 22, 20241 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: I bet you could Why would a non-religious society promote homosexuality? Using universalism as a means to develop a moral code--which many of the atheists in here rely upon --quite literally would define homosexuality as inappropriate as if it were applied universally it would end the human race. And the notion that homosexuality is "natural" is also blatantly wrong by that very definition. See? There you go, Christian, enjoy
Create an account or sign in to comment