Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Captain Gh3y]

I was trolling when I said that...



Bull. Shit

Either God made the universe by clicking his fingers, God started the big bang/or alternate scientific theory, or there is no God/diety and the universe essentially sprang from nothing, creating itself over time. Imo the 2nd one is the most feasible.

post about ur views

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Sprang from nothing? Our universe in some form has always existed, it has however changed form since time began around 13.7 billion years ago. To ask where it came from is silly because questions such as these only make sense within space/time.

Alternatively an atheist might simply... not know how the universe came into being.

Nice dodge. Unfortunately, only theists can use the space/time argument because to imply that the universe has always existed/is beyond our understanding is to imply that something supernatural is at work. The 'universe has always existed' statement is irrational if you are playing by the rules of the universe.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Nice dodge.

lol @ u saying that

ZERO credibility

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Shut the fuck up you lump of shit clinging to the side of the gene pool.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Nice dodge. Unfortunately, only theists can use the space/time argument because to imply that the universe has always existed/is beyond our understanding is to imply that something supernatural is at work. The 'universe has always existed' statement is irrational if you are playing by the rules of the universe.

the universe hasn't always existed, though. ?? explain further?

 

[beentherdunthat]

^ Shut the fuck up you lump of shit clinging to the side of the gene pool.

LOL

 

[*TRUE*]

Muslims really frighten me

 

[Captain Gh3y]

^ Shut the fuck up you lump of shit clinging to the side of the gene pool.

why won't you post what you believe?

 

[Enteebee]

Nice dodge.

Unfortunately, only theists can use the space/time argument
because to imply that the universe has always existed/is beyond our understanding is to imply that something supernatural is at work.

a) Implying that something 'supernatural' is at work is not to imply that a God exists.
b) I didn't appeal to anything being "beyond our understanding".
c) It is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of our universe as we see it... flowing from our understanding of natural laws and empirical observations.

The 'universe has always existed' statement is irrational if you are playing by the rules of the universe.

No it isn't, it perfectly follows the 'rules of the universe'... If you think otherwise explain to me which 'rule' of the universe it is in violation of?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I'm off to commit genocide whilst doing loads of drugs and offending Catholics

Hitler committed genocide while being honoured by the Catholics

 

[*TRUE*]

Whereas the priests are coming into the little child. Oh, now it makes sense

Dan thats just horrible.
Anyway, im not Catholic.

 

[ari89]

why won't you post what you believe?

I found his beliefs

The second principle of rational empiricism fundamentally implies full confidence in human reason and experience. It is supposed that the human mind has the ability to deduce from historical and personal experience what is in fact best for human society. However, this is not really the case. For example, the American Constitution, written by the best and most trusted minds of the eighteenth century, contains an article which is so fundamentally unjust and incorrect, that it defies comprehension by the modern enlightened mind. Article 1, section 2, entitled The Three-Fifth Compromise stated that black men (slaves at the time) were to be counted as three-fifth of a white man.33 Its authors all were slave owners who did not consider their slaves their equal. Consequently, when writing that document they merely expressed the ideas and beliefs or the ruling class or their times. Human reason and experience failed to arrive at what was in fact just. Any review of the legal systems of Europe, Asia or Africa all indicate that human lawmakers make laws according to their own sectarian or class interests. They have great difficulty in being truly objective. Consequently, Islaamic civilization holds that only God, who created human beings, knows their needs and who has no vested interests in any class, can legislate absolutely fair laws. Human input is restricted to the implementation of the divine laws and the deduction of secondary laws.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

lol, quran

60% of a white is still better than 25% of a man

 

[ari89]

You miss the point!

Rational empiricism is flawed at finding a universal truth therefore it is invalid in determining the existence (or non-existence) of God.

The only universal truth comes from God. To believe this means you believe in God. Therefore by God's own decree of truth, he exists.

 

[Kwayera]

Interesting article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4295804.ece

 

[*TRUE*]

Interesting article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4295804.ece

Why do you want to hurt me so?

 

[Kwayera]

Well.. it's interesting, from both sides of the divide.

 

[inasero]

You miss the point!

Rational empiricism is flawed at finding a universal truth therefore it is invalid in determining the existence (or non-existence) of God.

The only universal truth comes from God. To believe this means you believe in God. Therefore by God's own decree of truth, he exists.

While in principle I agree with what you're saying, alot of people here are rationalist/secular humanist/atheist, so therefore might argue that there is no God, "truth" is a subjective concept and/or if there is a God, there is no reason to believe that he/she/it possesses "universal" truth. Trust me I tried to explain many times but the only "truth" they'll accept is that which can be logically deduced.

 

[Enteebee]

While in principle I agree with what you're saying, alot of people here are rationalist/secular humanist/atheist, so therefore might argue that there is no God, "truth" is a subjective concept and/or if there is a God, there is no reason to believe that he/she/it possesses "universal" truth. Trust me I tried to explain many times but the only "truth" they'll accept is that which can be logically deduced.

If you need to place something outside of the realm of rational inquiry which mind you is where we can choose to believe in dragons if we so please then you have lost any sort of credibility for your beliefs.... It becomes basically "I believe because I believe" which I not only don't believe is true (I do believe you have some sort of flawed rationality behind your beliefs) and we have no mechanism by which to test the veracity of things.

 

[inasero]

I think this thread is seriously over if Inasero and the others are just going to repeat the same mantra and not take any other explanation. Myself, NTB, Slidey, Kwayera, etc, would all be open to any evidence that proves us incorrect, but you all seem completely closeminded.

Case over.

I'm only guessing, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of you are vehemently criticizing Christianity (not seeking to truly understand, as very few have done) because deep down, you secretly fear the repercussions of what it would mean if God were real. You hide behind your fragile logic and science to explain away all of the truly important questions which cause you to become restless and uncomfortable. Now tell me who's completely closeminded?