Comment by Heather Spoonheim on April 10, 2011 at 6:42am
Comment by Mac B on April 10, 2011 at 6:53am
Comment by Carlos Lopez on April 10, 2011 at 7:03am
Comment by Mac B on April 10, 2011 at 7:05am
Comment by Mac B on April 10, 2011 at 7:12am
Comment by Wesley on April 10, 2011 at 8:09am "God" is supposedly outside the matrix of time, space, causality, duality that we think of as this existence and material universe. He both supercedes and envelopes everything that we can imagine. He is 'eternal' because he created time...not because he has existed forever..(even though he has).
The who designed the designer paradox has always bothered me". If God didn't start, God didn't grow. God has never grown, matured, learned or anything, yet somehow possesses ALL KNOWLEDGE, ALL WISDOM, and is PERFECT AND COMPLETE. The big question becomes..if God is all of these things then what ripple of disturbance prompted him to create something in the first place? From where did the first thought come from? Did he get bored? Was he lonely? Can a perfect and complete being get bored and lonely? How can a perfect and complete being become motivated to do anything?
Comment by Doug Reardon on April 10, 2011 at 11:11am
Comment by Greg Gorey on April 10, 2011 at 12:28pm
Comment by Mo Trauen on April 10, 2011 at 3:51pm There are two responses you will get from the religious. One is that "it has to stop somewhere" (i.e., the infinite regress). The other is that "god is eternal".
Atheists can reply to the first "you should stop as soon as your knowledge does". That means you stop before even postulating the god hypothesis. The reply to the second is that they are deliberately misinterpreting your question to be about time and timing only. That is dishonest. You are not just asking about timing, you are asking about causation. Once you point that out, you will get the "it has to stop somewhere" type response again, to which you can point out that they should have stopped sooner.
You can also point out that "god is eternal" is circular reasoning because they are borrowing "facts" from their conclusion in order to reach it. That's a no-no. Tell then they have to prove god exists AND his attributes before they can assume those attributes. Assuming them beforehand necessarily assumes he exists and has those attributes.
You can also point out that they are claiming to know something they cannot possibly know, the origins of the universe, and that this is a separate question from the existence of god, so you are NOT guilty of the same thing. And you can point out that they have not solved the mystery, they have simply hidden it inside another mystery.
I strongly recommend reading these:
http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/09/believers-ask-well...
http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-universes-exi...
http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-universes-exi...
http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/09/burden-of-proof.html
Comment by Carlos Lopez on April 10, 2011 at 5:21pm Started by Holo Gram in Ethics & Morals 49 minutes ago. 0 Replies 0 Likes
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 8 Comments 0 Likes
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.

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