A Quick and Easy Guide to God. Your thoughts?

Views: 80401

Comment by Stephen Walski on August 8, 2011 at 12:00am

The fact that you are using the antiquated .. nothing can create itself argument... then you are obviously not versed enough in cosmological physics to have a reasonable conversation with anyway.

Comment by Liam P Burke on August 8, 2011 at 12:05am

Oh my.... Im arguing with people who cant read....


Nothing creates itself... Except for god or the universe... But which one can you prove? Oh that's right... neither.


I love you you dismiss me as incapable of understanding your arguments, then call me closed minded and arogant for the same thing to you, even tho I have answered your questions... Often multiple times.


Is their no atheist capable of being a reasonable person to deal with?

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 8, 2011 at 12:10am

Why 'except god or the universe'?  How did that get tossed in there?  Why is the universe capable of creating itself?  What if I said 'except Ted'?  How do you know Ted didn't create the universe.  Disprove Ted and you might have a foothold here.


I dismiss you as incapable because you don't even understand the kalam cosmological argument, the one you are using, has been thoroughly routed in debate.  Now go read up on the Gettier problem, or work through my epistemology on deities if you are up for it.


I have asked you for evidence, multiple times, and you still have provided none.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 8, 2011 at 12:12am

Oh, and I'm off to bed for the night but I'll be glad to continue this tomorrow on the blog I linked or here if you like.  As a primer, however, I'll repeat the question; what is your evidence?

Comment by Liam P Burke on August 8, 2011 at 12:13am

"you claim to know what is on the other side of the horizon"


I have never claimed to know what is there. I have only claimed to believe what is there. The funny the about you people is that you can provide neither argument or evidence that I'm wrong. When you do... you present a name as if I have never heard it... then assume I cant understand it... then contiue with insults to show your pure unadulterated arrogant idiocy.


In all these posts, not one of you have answered my biggest question. What makes your beleif any truer than mine?



When exactly did I say that I was a creationist? Creationists by definition dont believe in evolution. Where exactly have I said that I'm that stupid?

Comment by Stephen Walski on August 8, 2011 at 12:16am

Red light shift and sub atomic particle randomness are facts that support the universe creation from energy expansion, thats just two very basic concepts that are observable, documents, repeatable tests of the theory of universe expansion.. 


Give one independently verifiable, observable, repeatable fact that gives proof for gods existence... just one

Comment by Liam P Burke on August 8, 2011 at 12:17am



The picture you critiqued is a logic flow that proves a circular argument to god is good not the creation of the universe.


In fact, had you read my second statement in the thread, you will see that I specifically said that God is not all-good. And therefore the leg between "than god is not all-good" and another option is missing.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 8, 2011 at 12:17am

You have a belief in what is on the other side of that horizon - we don't.  How can not having a belief be supported by evidence?  It is you making the claim, so it is up to you to provide the evidence.  We believe that for which there is evidence - what is so hard to understand about that?  Oh, I forgot, your parents threatened you with immolation to brainwash you into the cult in which you are mired.


Evidence, that is why you need to provide.  We'll believe that for which there is evidence.  In the absence of evidence we will remain in absence of belief.

Comment by Akshay Bist on August 8, 2011 at 12:18am


How exactly does something that by its very nature is incapable of disproving anything... disprove something?

Science is based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reason can only disprove something if all the facts are known. If all the facts are already known, what then is the reason for science?

Falsify. There are many many scientific inconsistencies & massive improbabilities in the bible. Like the whole flat earth, young earth, adam & eve, center of the universe, noah keeping 2 of every animal on a boat, goats being born striped because their parents mated while looking at striped tree trunks stuff that would falsify the validity of the bible.

See unlike science, if you falsify one part of the bible, you put the whole thing into doubt.

If it turns out that Evolution is wrong, it wouldn't cast doubts on the validity of Relativity. But since your holy book says its the word of god, then disproving one bit is akin to disproving the whole thing.

Comment by Liam P Burke on August 8, 2011 at 12:22am


Oh my... You have read Stephen Hawkings book... So have I. It starts with there being some thing there to explode. Where did that something come from? Would that something not be everywhere since its explosion is what put everything here? What is that statement all christians say? Oh yeah... God is everywhere.


The arguments fall into each other.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service