Topic: There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!! - page 9. (Read 11591 times)

Honestly I'm not really sharing the Christian Gospel I'm getting to first base, the simple truth that its highly likely there is a higher power and no atheists really has anything more than 1st year Philosopher arguments to make their faith in no God sound reasonable.

I'm sorry but religious language makes us believers seems like crackpots. Many people today deep down know there is something of significance in their existence and funnily enough still have deep senses of right and wrong which is kind of hilarious considering they perceive themselves as advanced pond life.

I think the onus is on atheists is to put into a few sentences why God doesn't exist. Like I said I can, matter exists, logic says it must come from somewhere, it naturally calls for a creator. Even a big bang calls for an instigator. Its kind of stupid being an Atheist honestly, its the retarded meme du jour that long coated geeks working in the service industry can feel better about how dipshit dumb they are. Come on atheists give me your best shot. Come on tell me God doesn't exist because Science has proven he doesn't hahahahahahaha. Every generation has sheep sucking up their views from their environment.

Jesus is the king of kings, and lord of lords


Glad to see someone sharing the gospel

You can't state this fact or idea in a few sentences? Then either you don't understand it or its not really proof.


I've watched a few debates and shows with Dawkins, he comes across as an angry man with very simple arguments honestly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFwZwRNVwUg

I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.

Big Bang is only a theory that doesn't explain everything but it does explain a lot.

Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio').  In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof.  It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain.  It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression.  Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.

Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion.  The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur.   That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists.  There's a huge difference.  And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).

Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence.  For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%."  For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.

Until the time comes that people know everything about the universe, there is no way to truthfully and definitely say that the idea of the existence of God is a delusion. God could easily be lurking in the one piece of knowledge that man had missed. We wouldn't see Him because that is why He is called God. He can do the things of God.

The fact that all of man's knowledge comes from the universe, and the fact that the universe is probably packed with knowledge man hasn't even dreamed about, yet, suggests, at the very least, that there might be a God.

Now, put the above two points together with the fact that man boldly makes the statement that there is no god, and you come up with a very definite god. This god is man, setting himself up as god, by making an assertion he is not qualified to make.

When man does this, the thing he is really doing, is making himself out to be lower than the animals, who at least recognize that there are beings greatly superior to themselves (humans).

As Robert Pirsig says, and Richard Dawkins agrees with:So, when you have man setting himself up as God in the face of a universe full of "things" that suggest highly that God must exist, the man-as-God idea must be a religion... like atheism is a religion. Or is it only that the one or two who are self-god makers are insane?

It's somewhere inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

PS: The whole world can't say "ah ok yo're right there is no God" because not everyone dares to read this book.

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. Why not prove there is a god instead?

Provide irrefutable proof of your hypothesis and you'll make a believer out of me. However, I've never seen any proof, and I doubt you have anything new to show me.

Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.

So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.

I agree about intellectual laziness.  But the machine argument is still plausible specifically because plausibility doesn't actually  invoke anything. 

Exactly, well said.

I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.

To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".

difficult != impossible

There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch.  Plausible?  Sure.  Sound?  No.  That's about as clear as it gets.

Huh? Because an intelligent person thinks something then it true? But there are intelligent people in history that might agree with me and disagree with you. That's the second most illogical statement I have heard today. I can't assume everyone who is clever is right...I thought you were the thinkers mocking the silly fool believing in Spaghetti Monsters.


The fact is this creation as in existence of inert matter and scientific laws like gravity etc not developed creatures convinces me there must be a power beyond and behind it all. Call me crazy and stick to your story if you want. Cause I know if you have decided that there is not a God you can't argue someone to see it, they have to get that revelation themselves...or not as the case my be. I got to go to bed.

http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

I'm glad you think the answers are obvious, when some of the greatest minds in history disagree with you. When can we expect your treatise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

I would be pretty impressed with either wouldn't you? Forgeting semantics what do you see as different? Assembled suggests another God created it and he just got called in to coordinate things. Or do you mean he created the world and sort of walked away to let it run its course. If so no I believe God is a living God who engages with his creation.

Its a brain twister but God is separate from creation he just is and always was, Yahweh the most common name given to God in the Torah means 'he who creates'.

Creator = someone who designed it or someone who assembled it?

You don't need my permission to live your life as you want, but there are too many religions out there - sure hope your family picked the right one so you don't burn for eternity.

But you also give me the permission to live my life as I want? And if that is believing in a reason for my own existence in a plan that has ramifications for all eternity you wouldn't mind awfully if I don't follow your way to live that in my opinion leads to destruction of my soul for eternity.

Cause from your statement you are saying I should live my life how I want in other-wards live it as you want me to. I can't think of anything more illogical.