Convince me that God is not real - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Convince me that God is not real

Debate Information

Couple of years ago I posted a debate on here entitled "Evolution" when I was an atheist. at the time, I was an atheist. But now by the grace of the lord Jesus Christ, I believe in God and I am a christian due to extensive evidence and arguments and because of personal experience. I believe God exists due to extensive evidence, scientific, philosophical and logical such as the incomprehensibly unlikely fine tuning of this universe for life to exist (or even for the universe to exist) which requires a deliberate designer mind. Moreover, the kalam and contingency argument were very compelling and convinced me. The ontological argument also shows God must exist if he is possible. In addition, the introspective and digital physics arguments also exponentially increase the odds that God exists. Finally, the argument from immaterial consciousness or the soul sealed the deal. I narrow down to Christianity through the evidence from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which substantiates his claims that he is God as proven in Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.
Max_Air29ErfisflatTungol
  1. Live Poll

    God exists

    16 votes
    1. Of course he does, there is extensive evidence.
      50.00%
    2. No, The world just popped into existence from nothing.
      12.50%
    3. I do not know.
      37.50%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Max_Air29Max_Air29 84 Pts   -  
    There is so much evidence in favor of God.
    Erfisflatm_abusteitGeorge_Horsespobrien333
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    One theory about how the universe came to life is quantum fluctuations started a chain reaction to create everything. This is supported by the Uncertainty Principle. According to wikipedia, "states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval."

    But what evidence is there in favor of God as you say? People already figured out an omnipotent being is impossible. (can God create a boulder he cannot lift, and then lift it? If he makes the boulder but fails to lift it, he's not omnipotent. If he can't make the boulder, he's not omnipotent.)
    m_abusteitspobrien333




  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 330 Pts   -  
    It is seemingly impossible for something to appear out of nothing.
    God would be something, so it is seemingly impossible for God to exist.
    But of course, we know that matter exists. Don't we?
    So at some point in the past something must have appeared from nothing.
    Though it does seem rather bizarre that that something was a God and not a few fundamental particles.
    Nonetheless. As I see it, the existence of everything actually relies upon a magical event.
    Therefore seemingly, anything is possible.
    Erfisflatm_abusteitDawnBringerRivenGeorge_Horse
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    One theory about how the universe came to life is quantum fluctuations started a chain reaction to create everything. This is supported by the Uncertainty Principle. According to wikipedia, "states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval."

    But what evidence is there in favor of God as you say? People already figured out an omnipotent being is impossible. (can God create a boulder he cannot lift, and then lift it? If he makes the boulder but fails to lift it, he's not omnipotent. If he can't make the boulder, he's not omnipotent.)
    Oh boy where do I even begin?


    Scientist were trying to find the minimum amount of energy in a area of space so they created a vacuum by taking out all the objects, air molecules and particles that may have kinetic energy. After they did this they realised there was still energy in this area of space. It is electromagnetic infrared radiation, radiation like light but at lower frequencies, it is what brings heat from the sun to the earth. So they dropped the temperature of the area of space to temperature -273 degrees absolute zero temperature, and made it pitch black to get rid of all infrared radiation. Then they realised there is still energy left in this area of space they call this energy zero point energy or vacuum energy where energy fluctuates creating virtual particles upon measuring or observing. 
    It is the energy that causes the speed of light to have a limit by creating "friction" in the electromagnetic world. It is also the energy that allows atoms to exist. Ever heard of electrons orbiting around specific orbitals or "energy levels"? Usually when an electron accelerates (eg orbiting around a proton) it will give out energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation and its horizontal velocity will slow down causing to to eventually fall into the object. Ever wondered why these 'energy levels' exist allowing electrons to orbit without losing energy and falling into the object? There's a theory going around that the energy absorbed by electrons from zero point energy equals the electromagnetic radiation given out at these energy levels that's why the electron doesn't lose revolving velocity and fall into the object. And hence allowing atoms to exist.


    Vacuum energy is not nothing, it is something (low energy).


    Secondly, quantum vacuum fluctuations are the result of observing. You can only have those virtual particles keeping with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg and with the experimental test of non-local realism (could be found on arvix). So even if you want to invoke quantum fluctuations, you would still need a spaceless, timeless, supernatural observer (God) who observed or measured the vacuum energy to create the virtual particles.  


    Moreover, before the universe there was no space (https://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/). What I mean is that there was no space to hold the vacuum energy and no space for the vacuum energy to even exist. Vacuum energy can only exist in empty space but you need the space dimension for that.

    In addition, Who created the vacuum energy?
    DawnBringerRiven
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21

    as for your and childish boulder "counter-argument"? 

    God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and still be able to lift it.
    LoganL549TungolDawnBringerRivenVincent_Costanzospobrien333
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 330 Pts   -  
    Space is an intangible reality.
    Matter is a tangible reality.
    God is an unproved theory.
    The truth is yet to be uncovered.
    PowerPikachu21m_abusteit
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit So God is unable to make a boulder which God can't lift? God'd defined as being Omnipotent (able to do anything), Omniscient (knowing everything), and Omnibenevolent (all loving) Though here's another contradiction I found: Can God learn anything?

    There's also the Problem of Evil; specifically natural evil; hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, natural disasters. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he'd want to stop these disasters. We still have storms, even when we pray. If he's able but not willing, he's malevolent. If he's not able to stop them, he's not omnipotent. You might call these disasters a test, but remember: God's also supposed to be all knowing, therefore know the conclusion of the test, making it pointless. If he already knows the result, he's malevolent for allowing disasters to slay innocents. If he doesn't know the result of this test, he isn't omniscient.
    m_abusteitDawnBringerRiven
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21

    Wait hold a minute what happened to your quantum fluctuations as part of atheist dogma. 

    I just told you which you do not seem to understand. God can make a boulder as heavy as possible (infinite weight) and he would still be able to lift it.

    Evil entered the world when man sinned. Most evil is man-made (holocaust, colonialism and African starvation, etc.) 
    The disasters are a test that God already knows the answer to. But who benefits from the test? The test-taker or the test-maker. Obviously the test-taker because he gains patience and more faith in God.

    Why do you deny all the evidence there is for God?
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit I'll be honest, I'm not an expert on quantum fluctuations, so I'm not sure how to address your objection to that.

    But what I do know is that God is paradoxical. You concede that God is unable to create a boulder he can't lift. As he cannot create the boulder, he's not omnipotent. You also haven't said if God can learn. If he can learn, he's not omniscient, since he doesn't know something. If he can't learn something, that's something he's unable to do, therefore he's not omnipotent.

    "Evil entered the world when man sinned. Most evil is man-made"

    But then why do tsunamis exist? What benefit does this have? If it's a punishment, then God isn't omnibenevolent, and additionally not omnipotent because God could've just not had any evil in the first place. Why did the Apple of Eden (the one that Adam and Eve ate that spread evil) have to exist? If God does know the result [evil spreading], he's malevolent for literally creating evil.

    "The disasters are a test that God already knows the answer to. But who benefits from the test? The test-taker or the test-maker. Obviously the test-taker because he gains patience and more faith in God."

    So basically you're saying that I gain faith in a supposedly benevolent God because he makes people's houses get destroyed by earthquakes? That seems counter productive to me.

    I deny evidence for a God because he hasn't shown himself directly, so I believe there's no reason to believe in God.
    ImbsterErfisflatDawnBringerRivenGeorge_Horse
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21

    I did not concede the boulder. I just said God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and he will still be able to lift. There is no too heavy for him.

    That's a childish view of omnipotence you got. God has infinite power but he will only use this power on what he wants. What he wants is determined by his nature. In 2 timothy 2:13, it says God can not deny himself which means God is a rational non-contradictory concept who will not use his infinite power on something that will contradict his nature.

    "Why do tsunamis happen?"

    Evil entered the world through sin.

    "If it's a punishment, then God isn't omnibenevolent, and additionally not omnipotent because God could've just not had any evil in the first place. Why did the Apple of Eden (the one that Adam and Eve ate that spread evil) have to exist? If God does know the result [evil spreading], he's malevolent for literally creating evil."

    It is not a punishment. It is a test. He can stop it but he won't because then he would be breaking his nature and what he declared on adam and eve when they ate the apple which means God is still omnipotent. He loves us but in order to keep with his perfect justice, he can not interfere to keep his declarations. Plus, it could look evil to you but it could not be evil at all. For example, A vaccinated child will think their parents are evil for allowing the pain of the needle to be inflicted on them with the permission of their parents. But are their parents really evil for trying to protect them from greater dangers like viruses. What if God is sending tsunamis to drive people out of low-lying areas so that rising sea levels will not drown as many people. Who knows? I just told you the point of the test was for adam and eve's benefit and not to God's benefit. Adam and eve became more patient and in control of their desires and they were more obedient to God post-Eden.

    "evidence"

    So you do not believe in God due to a lack of empirical evidence? Depsite the fact that I provided a plethora of empirical evidence for God in the OP (Beginning of the universe requires a supernatural cause, incomprehensibly unlikely odds for fine tuning of the universe require a deliberate eternal designer mind, moral realism require a universal lawmaker, contingency of the universe require a supernatural necessary cause, etc.), you are not being consistent. Do you not believe that your wife is loyal? Well you have no picture or touchable evidence. Do you not believe Logic exists despite having no picture nor tangible touchable evidence? Math? Morals? etc.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • LoganL549LoganL549 33 Pts   -  

    @PowerPikachu21

    as for your and childish boulder "counter-argument"? 

    God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and still be able to lift it.
    Don't know if someone beat me to it, but that is an actually intelligent argument in physics. Google "An immovable force meets an unstoppable object" or something to those effects. If God is all-powerful, He can take something that should be called unmovable and move it. By rights, everybody but Him could call it unmovable. But could He create something not even He could move, and still retain the power to move it if he chose, or change the laws he set to it and move it? Think of Thor's hammer for a truly childish analogy. It's largely a philosophical concept.
  • LoganL549LoganL549 33 Pts   -   edited August 2017
    @m_abusteit So God is unable to make a boulder which God can't lift? God'd defined as being Omnipotent (able to do anything), Omniscient (knowing everything), and Omnibenevolent (all loving) Though here's another contradiction I found: Can God learn anything?

    There's also the Problem of Evil; specifically natural evil; hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, natural disasters. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he'd want to stop these disasters. We still have storms, even when we pray. If he's able but not willing, he's malevolent. If he's not able to stop them, he's not omnipotent. You might call these disasters a test, but remember: God's also supposed to be all knowing, therefore know the conclusion of the test, making it pointless. If he already knows the result, he's malevolent for allowing disasters to slay innocents. If he doesn't know the result of this test, he isn't omniscient.

    I was talking to a friend with a strange perspective; he says that, if he were God, he would want to make a world perfect and/or balanced, and not change what he had created, thus evil. Seeing it as, nothing is wrong if laws are in place, balance, if things went as was somehow planned, or if things were not broken, if things were destined... he sees things as a coder would. If there is no bug or glitch, things are as they should be. Thinking without bias, without discrimination towards what is negligibly right or wrong. It's a weird concept, but it's, I suppose, like saying.... volcanos will happen, but were made for a reason. They act under the predetermined laws set in place, with no unexpected side-effects, as it were. For all intended purposes. Some may think God created us as some sort of sandbox, for his enjoyment, out of curiosity because of his omnipotence and omniscience. But then, as you say, if you know what will happen, why play the game? Think of nature, and how after a volcano comes fertile soil. I guess, in life, it comes down to seeing the positives in life.

    I think a lot is overthought with no result, in all the energy put into being pondered. Not to say that asking questions and finding answers isn't bad, but... when something seems so incomprehensible as "God created an un-liftable, or an alleged infinitely heavy boulder"... how does that make sense? There's got to be a weight that is heavier than any amount of strength applied to move a mass. You see the logical fallacy? Infinite strength versus infinite weight. Or does God have infinite +1 strength, to put it into context, measuring or gauging based off of units?





  • ImbsterImbster 148 Pts   -  
    You'd wish this were true that since you can't help every kid on the street then God can't but the problem here is you're still pushing for the fact he's omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
    @PowerPikachu21
    Great effort for using philosophical concepts you could've gone biblical so I'll do the honour. 
    I'll be disproving these three omnis easily with the BIBLE.

    https://thechurchoftruth.org/god-is-not-omniscient-tower-of-babble/

    In the tower of Babel arc, God had to come down to see what people are up to? Omnipresent?
    God uses fact finding tests to see if people will follow another God maaanyyy times in the old testament. Omniscient?
    Yeh if this were Minecraft and I had godmode I can't drive anyone out if they have a chariot of iron. Judges 1:19. Omnipotent?

    Many more if you take time to read. Don't even argue not to trust the Bible cause it's just a collection of books cause I'll argue I don't trust your future arguments if it's just a collection of your personal experiences that made you believe in God. 
    The Bible is always a primary basis.

    Hopefully this will simplify the debate and you'll come to accept your Abrahamic God, the god you returned to, because he fine tuned the universe, does not have a single omni. By simplify, no more of these omni talk.

    Let's go to disproving God directly and not his attributes that's like proving the Flash is not the fastest person because we're still able to see him travel in seconds when we watch tv( we shouldn't even be able to catch up his speed) when the context is disproving the Flash as a fictional DC character.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • @m_abusteit

    I'm going to relatively stay relatively out of this debate, but it is unfair for you to say "Prove that God doesn't exist". It's like me saying  "You are a murderer, prove to me that you didn't murder anyone" You are supposed to prove that something does exist." There is no scientific evidence to debunk an intelligent creator, in a general sense, but saying that concluding that some

    But anyway that aside, I'm going to take a crack at your interpretation of God, (As a precursor, I believe that a God may exist, but all human interpretations of God are false or at least flawed.)

    I'm going to focus on your Christian interpretation of God, and I'm going to "debunk it" with philosophy - God is all knowing, so of course, he knows what lust feels like, but the Bible defines lust as sinful, and yet your interpretation of God claims that God is benevolent in every way. This is logically inconsistent, and can also be applied with wrath, God is very wrathful according to the Bible, and yet you claim he is benevolent.
    DawnBringerRiven
    This account is dead, my political opinions have changed significantly and I'm no longer active.
  • rorelie12rorelie12 24 Pts   -  
    Well, if there should be such a perfect things as God, he should be beyond human congnition. In a similar vein as Plato's idea, what human beings can perceive is mere a limited, distorted vision of the thing that God has created. In that sense, God is not real, if a reality means what we see and touch, but ideal. 
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @rorelie12

    You  just defeated yourself. By saying that God is beyond human cognition and therefore does not exist is the same as saying humans have no understanding of energy (beyond comprehension) so energy does not exist.




    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of definite amount. We do not even have a unified definition of energy"

    - The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, 4-1
  • rorelie12rorelie12 24 Pts   -  

    @m_abusteit

    I didn't say God does not exist. What I meant was that whether it does exist or not, ultimately it is beyond human recognition, and that the attitude requred is to keep our faith in the face of skeptism or uncertainty. My position is called agnosticism. Plus, the value of worship lies in the human fate in which we cannot know everything for certain but can still hold our faith in difficult times, even if it may not be rewarded.

    1Hacker0
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 91 Pts   -  
    @rorelie12 The way you worded it made it seem like you were saying God doesn't exist, but besides that I agree with agnosticism. 
  • @rorelie12 Yeah, but that only supports my theory of human interpretations of God, if God is too perfect for human understanding? Then why would an all knowing God allow or expect humans to understand, trust, and worship something that is out of their ability to interpret?
    This account is dead, my political opinions have changed significantly and I'm no longer active.
  • rorelie12rorelie12 24 Pts   -  

      @SnakesOfferingApples

    It's my personal view, so it may not sound persuading. In my opinion God is a reflection of self-portrayals of human beings, as well as an entity that represents the world view we have, which helps intergrate miscellaneous physical phenomenon into one orderly system.

    In other words, the concept of God is an archemedian point by which we can form a coherent understanding of  the physical world that is in itself full of contradiction, just as metaphysics supplements physics to form one unity.

    In this sense, I think the God as we know it springs from human understanding of the world.

    Still, back to your question, if we cannot know the existence of God, where do the existing religions come from?

    I think my answer will be like this; we cannot know directly whether or not God exists, but based on our experience in the physical world, we can formulate a system of knowledge about this world, which won't be complete without an assumption of God. We cannot probably prove the existence of God by any scientific method, but we can still assume from what we have learnt.

    So, religions are like that. They were the attemps to explain and integrate many different spheres of our lives in one universe, the center of which is the assumption of God. If the assumption of God can provide a coherent world view, even if it cannot be seen or touched, some might judge it rational to believe in God.

    Sorry for my bad explanation. As a foreigner, this is my best.


  • @rorelie12

    I agree with your world view that "God is an attempt to understand and represent the world" But I disagree, that the world as we know it can't be explained without God - science indicates that the world is automatic and can operate without one. The reason I still believe in a possibility of God is that science doesn't explain everything yet, and there are inconsistencies in science which can't also be explained.

    P.S -
     1 - I am also foreign, but I am currently living in America.  2 - Sorry for the late response, I am currently preparing for school.
    This account is dead, my political opinions have changed significantly and I'm no longer active.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1657 Pts   -  
    Most everyone here, without seeing one, believes in black holes. Therefore you have faith that they exist.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer




  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Most everyone here, without seeing one, believes in black holes. Therefore you have faith that they exist.
    Maan, .. I grew up in Detroit, there were always at least 2 to 3 black hoes both end of my street, at night, on weekends there were dozens, so I know they exist!
    m_abusteit
  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    Couple of years ago I posted a debate on here entitled "Evolution" when I was an atheist. at the time, I was an atheist. But now by the grace of the lord Jesus Christ, I believe in God and I am a christian due to extensive evidence and arguments and because of personal experience. I believe God exists due to extensive evidence, scientific, philosophical and logical such as the incomprehensibly unlikely fine tuning of this universe for life to exist (or even for the universe to exist) which requires a deliberate designer mind.

    Moreover, the kalam and contingency argument were very compelling and convinced me. The ontological argument also shows God must exist if he is possible. In addition, the introspective and digital physics arguments also exponentially increase the odds that God exists. Finally, the argument from immaterial consciousness or the soul sealed the deal. I narrow down to Christianity through the evidence from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which substantiates his claims that he is God as proven in Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.

    Awesome, may God bless you.
    Please don't be offended in what I will ask you next, the LAST thing I would want is to "offend a little one", as Jesus said, a young convert to following Jesus Christ.
    Here is my question, and it's hard to phrase it in a way not to throw you off track, so please ask me to explain anything that you didn't understand? Did you become a member of the Christian Religion, .. because I noticed that you said Jesus Christ is God, the Christian Religion does claim that.

    I know the Bible never said that, nor did Jesus, he corrected the Pharisees a number of times when they tried to accuse him of claiming that he was God, but he vehemently argued against it:

    John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

    "I and the Father are one", .. as we Believers are to be "one with God", for if we don't become one with Him, .. on one mind, intent with God, we shall never get into Heaven, is this how you understand it too, or is it like the Catholic/Constantine created Christian Religion claims, that Jesus is actually God!?

    John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

    This here then would mean that Jesus was telling them that we are all God, do you think that is what Jesus was trying to tell them? "He (God) called them gods!"   what else would it mean?

    But watch this, Jesus made sure that they would not even think he said: "Well God said we are all gods, so what's wrong with me calling myself God?" and now read what he said next?

    John 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe[d] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

    Jesus clarified it, to make sure they would not twist his words and make it that he claimed to be God, so he said: "So you say I'm 'blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

    Jesus said "I do the works of My Father", this is why he said that him and his Father are One. One intent, of one heart soul and mind just as we all are to be, doing what our Heavenly Father asks us to do!

    As for the Ontological Argument, .. was first criticized by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm of Canterbury. He argued that the ontological argument could be used to demonstrate the existence of anything, utilizing an analogy of a perfect island. The argument was also criticized by the famed Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas and also by David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

    The whole premise of the ontological argument is wrong, The ontological argument is widely thought to have been first clearly articulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as the greatest conceivable being. Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality).

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ontological-argument.htm

    The greatest being? Like theism which includes all the Greek gods, none of which is our Infinite Creator God "I Am"!?

    God is not a being, but the Ground of Being, which is "Infinite". There can Only be One Infinite, and Infinite is conscious, as He explained to Moses: "I Am Who I Am", this is my name: "I Am", so go and tell my people that "I Am" has sent me to you!"

    m_abusteit said: "Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.

    Yes, he is the Way, the Truth and the Life, TO God, .. NOT God himself.

    So I'm not going to "convince you that God is not real", .. instead I hope to convince you "who our One and only possible God is", .. because He is NOT Jesus Christ.

    That would be the sun-god, or light bearer of the Catholic Christian Religion, Lucifer, and not the Bible God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.


  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Thats not why i believe jesus is not god. 

    It is because mark 12 and deutronomy 6 v 4 establish that God is one, NOT three as trinitarians claim.

    Also jesus himself said that the father alone is the ONLY true God in john 17 v 3 and john 5 v 42-44

    The ontological argument does not fail at the perfect island because a perfect island is a contingent being that is not neecessary and therefore does not have to exist in this world.
  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Thats not why i believe jesus is not god. 

    It is because mark 12 and deutronomy 6 v 4 establish that God is one, NOT three as trinitarians claim.

    Also jesus himself said that the father alone is the ONLY true God in john 17 v 3 and john 5 v 42-44

    The ontological argument does not fail at the perfect island because a perfect island is a contingent being that is not neecessary and therefore does not have to exist in this world.
    Oh, so you don't believe that Jesus is God, .. awesome. I thought you said he was From what I read from here:

    @m_abusteit - Finally, the argument from immaterial consciousness or the soul sealed the deal. I narrow down to Christianity through the evidence from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which substantiates his claims that he is God as proven in Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.

    Yes, I agree that God is One, the Only Possible One, right? Infinite and Eternal Mind/Spirit "I Am", is that how you understand Him too?

    So far no one has even come close to prove God doesn't exist. So how would you prove that God does exist, .. I'm just curious?

    @rorelie12

    You  just defeated yourself. By saying that God is beyond human cognition and therefore does not exist is the same as saying humans have no understanding of energy (beyond comprehension) so energy does not exist.




    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of definite amount. We do not even have a unified definition of energy"

    - The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, 4-1

    m_abusteit - We do not even have a unified definition of energy"

    I thought E=MC^2 was?
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    To begin with, I'd have to ask which of the gods you want us to disprove.
    When we've established which one you're talking about, I'd say disprove the thousands of other gods first and then we'll look at yours.
    DawnBringerRiven
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • This depends on what one accepts as evidence or proof of existence. 

    • If you feel in your heart that something exists, does that mean it exists or is likely to exist? My answer to that is no. I think profound feelings are more important than anything else in the world: they are what makes life worth living. But they're not good at everything. They're particularly bad at helping us understand truths outside of ourselves. Who hasn't deeply felt something to be true, only to find out it wasn't? The ancient Greeks felt -- to the bottom of their hearts -- that their gods were real. Few of us believe in them now.
    • If a lot of people -- prominent people -- say something exists does, does that mean it does exist or is likely to exist? My answer is no.* Prominent Mayans claimed that the world will end in 2010. They claimed that for thousands of years. Prominent people have claimed that the world is flat and that you can tell if someone is a criminal by feeling the bumps on his head.
    • If there's no conclusive evidence that something DOESN'T exist, does that mean it does exist or is likely to exist? My answer is no. We have no conclusive evidence that elves don't exist. We have no conclusive evidence that robots aren't walking amongst us, built to perfectly mimic humans.
    • If there's a mystery, and something would solve that mystery if it existed, does that mean it exists or is likely to exist? My answer is no. "If God doesn't exist, then how did we all get here?" My answer: I don't know. Not knowing doesn't make some claim -- e.g. God exists -- true. I don't know what happened to that dollar I left on my desk. But me not knowing does not make it is likely that space aliens took it.

    (A similar query is "If God doesn't exist, then what's the point of anything?" Or "If God doesn't exist, what's going to make us be good?" Those formulations basically say "I really, really, really WANT or NEED God to exist, because if He doesn't, life will be terrible." Maybe, but wanting something doesn't make it so. I want a million dollars to appear in my bank account. It never does.)

    Some people feel that the preceding sorts of evidence, while not meaningful separately, add up to something. "You can't prove that God doesn't exist and lots of smart people say He DOES exist, and I have continual profound feelings that He exists, AND if He doesn't exist, who created the universe?" Does that mean He exists or is likely to exist? I say no. Zero plus zero plus zero plus zero = zero, not one.

    Will belief in God make you feel good or add meaning to your life? Possibly. Does He exist? No. Not according to arguments that I can accept. And by "no," I mean that I have absolutely no rational reason to believe He exists. That's what atheism means to me. It doesn't mean I have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist -- I don't. It means I have no more reason to believe in God than I have to believe in fairies. 

    * "But we can't personally investigate everything. You believe in the findings of Science because prominent people say they're true. You just trust them." 

    No. I trust the PROCESS of Science. I trust it based on first-hand evidence, not evidence I've been told about by someone else. I've tried the process myself and I've observed other people using it. I believe certain things based on what other people say, not because those people are prominent, but because I know the tools they used to prove their claims.

    I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions. But I ONLY trust those predictions if many people confirm them in lots of separate tests. I do NOT believe something is true because one scientist claims he has proven it's true. I believe something is likely to be true because the entire scientific community has become convinced its true, based on rigorous, open (anyone can look at the data) testing. 

    This allows me to trust a lot of second-hand truths. I don't think Science is perfect, but it's the best tool we have for learning truths about the Natural World. And it was invented specifically because we can't trust the methods I mentioned above: we can't trust our gut, we can't trust what people say, we can't trust what we want to believe, etc. Those methods repeatedly make flawed predictions. Only Science has a good track record.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples

    Hoe about we establish if God even exists or not first then discuss his character?
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    @m_abusteit
    Like I said, which god?
    (out of thousands of gods)
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • This depends on what one accepts as evidence or proof of existence. If you feel in your heart that something exists, does that mean it exists or is likely to exist? My answer to that is no. I think profound feelings are more important than anything else in the world: they are what makes life worth living. But they're not good at everything. They're particularly bad at helping us understand truths outside of ourselves. Who hasn't deeply felt something to be true, only to find out it wasn't? The ancient Greeks felt -- to the bottom of their hearts -- that their gods were real. Few of us believe in them now. If a lot of people -- prominent people -- say something exists does, does that mean it does exist or is likely to exist? My answer is no.* Prominent Mayans claimed that the world would end in 2010s. They claimed that for thousands of years. Prominent people have claimed that the world is flat and that you can tell if someone is a criminal by feeling the bumps on his head. If there's no conclusive evidence that something DOESN'T exist, does that mean it does exist or is likely to exist? My answer is no. We have no conclusive evidence that elves don't exist. We have no conclusive evidence that robots aren't walking amongst us, built to perfectly mimic humans. If there's a mystery, and something would solve that mystery if it existed, does that mean it exists or is likely to exist? My answer is no. "If God doesn't exist, then how did we all get here?" My answer: I don't know. Not knowing doesn't make some claim -- e.g. God exists -- true. I don't know what happened to that dollar I left on my desk. But me not knowing does not make it likely that space aliens took it. (A similar query is "If God doesn't exist, then what's the point of anything?" Or "If God doesn't exist, what's going to make us be good?" Those formulations basically say "I really, really, really WANT or NEED God to exist, because if He doesn't, life will be terrible." Maybe, but wanting something doesn't make it so. I want a million dollars to appear in my bank account. It never does.) Some people feel that the preceding sorts of evidence, while not meaningful separately, add up to something. "You can't prove that God doesn't exist and lots of smart people say He DOES exist, and I have continual profound feelings that He exists, AND if He doesn't exit, who created the universe?" Does that mean He exists or is likely to exist? I say no. Zero plus zero plus zero plus zero = zero, not one. Will belief in God make you feel good or add meaning to your life? Possibly. Does He exist? No. Not according to arguments that I can accept. And by "no," I mean that I have absolutely no rational reason to believe He exists. That's what atheism means to me. It doesn't mean I have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist -- I don't. It means I have no more reason to believe in God than I have to believe in fairies. * "But we can't personally investigate everything. You believe in the findings of Science because prominent people say they're true. You just trust them." No. I trust the PROCESS of Science. I trust it based on first-hand evidence, not evidence I've been told about by someone else. I've tried the process myself and I've observed other people using it. I believe certain things based on what other people say, not because those people are prominent, but because I know the tools they used to prove their claims. I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions. But I ONLY trust those predictions if many people confirm them in lots of separate tests. I do NOT believe something is true because one scientist claims he has proven it's true. I believe something is likely to be true because the entire scientific community has become convinced its true, based on rigorous, open (anyone can look at the data) testing. This allows me to trust a lot of second-hand truths. I don't think Science is perfect, but it's the best tool we have for learning truths about the Natural World. And it was invented specifically because we can't trust the methods I mentioned above: we can't trust our gut, we can't trust what people say, we can't trust what we want to believe, etc. Those methods repeatedly make flawed predictions. Only Science has a good track record.

  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    @DawnBringerRiven so according to you, God does not exist, and science has a good "track record", .. correct?


    First, which God/gods are you talking about, that you believe "don't exist"? Because scientifically speaking, One uncreated-Creator does exist, and I would like to see someone prove otherwise?

    Second, .. the Big-Bang story that was invented by a Jesuit Catholic Priest (George Lemaitre), .. and also that man evolved from primordial soup that was slowly accumulating on an imaginary globe-planet called "Earth", while spinning, flying and twirling through a vacuum, that over millions and billions of years created an amoeba in the sweat that the Third Rock from the Sun produced, .. grew legs and lungs (as evidenced by fossils) got out of the water, climbed a tree, grew a digestive system and ate a banana which influenced further development of a brain which hallucinates a mind, .. and this too is considered "science".

    So in my humble opinion, science has a terrible "tract record", and with the advancement of Religious Organizations like 666CERN and Snake-tongued NASA it is getting not only worse, but the costliest failure in human history!

    So my question is twofold;

    1) Which Creator God (since there can Only be One uncreated-Creator),

    2) Which version of science are we talking about? Is it the NWO-Addition where any mythical "once upon a time millions and billions of years ago" fairytale can be considered, .. or are we talking about the actual definition of science?

    Thanks.




  • "First, which God/gods are you talking about, that you believe "don't exist"? Because scientifically speaking, One uncreated-Creator does exist, and I would like to see someone prove otherwise?" I believe you misunderstand my argument. The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive. In the end, we choose to believe based on what is more convenient for us. I wasn't referencing any specific God. Just simply a higher being.
    For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."
  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 63 Pts   -  
    About the Kalam and Contingency arguments, is there no first cause needed for the creation of god? Is there no contingency necessary for the existence of god? Why do all of these argument apply to the universe and not god. God may transcend space and time, but the arguments state that anything that exists must have a first cause and must have something necessary for it to exist. So the question is: does god exist? If he does, then the arguments used to prove he existence also disprove it. If he does not, then the Atheists have already won.
  • THEDENIERTHEDENIER 63 Pts   -  
    By the way, about the chances of earth developing such amazing life, it is important that we are only asking these questions because earth has the ability to foster and create life. Billions, Trillions of worlds have no life. So of course if we say "what are the chances of a given world creating life?" they would be unbelievably small, but if we say "what are the chance that one world will create life?" then obviously, it becomes far larger due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. Our sample is obviously biased because on a world without life, no one is there to ask what the chances that their world can create life are.
  • DawnBringerRivenDawnBringerRiven 95 Pts   -   edited September 2017
    THEDENIER said:
    By the way, about the chances of earth developing such amazing life, it is important that we are only asking these questions because earth has the ability to foster and create life. Billions, Trillions of worlds have no life. So of course if we say "what are the chances of a given world creating life?" they would be unbelievably small, but if we say "what are the chance that one world will create life?" then obviously, it becomes far larger due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. Our sample is obviously biased because on a world without life, no one is there to ask what the chances that their world can create life are.
    I think that the chances that an all powerful intelligent being that can manipulate the very laws of physics is less likely to pop into existence, then a bunch of rocks and balls of fire popping into existence. 
    EvidenceTHEDENIER
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 492 Pts   -  
    "Convince me God is not real"

    But, where is the evidence that a God exists? I do not get it.
    Evidence
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    "First, which God/gods are you talking about, that you believe "don't exist"? Because scientifically speaking, One uncreated-Creator does exist, and I would like to see someone prove otherwise?" I believe you misunderstand my argument. The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive. In the end, we choose to believe based on what is more convenient for us. I wasn't referencing any specific God. Just simply a higher being.
    For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    @DawnBringerRiven said: "The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive"

    So billions and billions of people are bowing down to these "statues" of gods that don't really exist?

    Oh they exist all right, even the Bible talks about them:

    Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    The work of men’s hands.
    16 They have mouths, but they do not speak;
    Eyes they have, but they do not see;
    17 They have ears, but they do not hear;
    Nor is there any breath in their mouths.
    18 Those who make them are like them;
    So is everyone who trusts in them.

    http://www.magicalomaha.com/godgoddessstatury.htm?pi=4

    These are all real gods and goddesses, and people do various things to worship them, .. including but not limited to 'killing their own children' as an offering to them. How can all these gods be nonexistent? Is there a "nonexistent" statue, or story of Odin, or Thor, Shiva or Gaia? Or has anyone seen and met Odin or Thor other than in comics and fairytale books, and now in movies? Which version of Odin and Thor does not exist? Can you, or anyone show me a more real version of any of the pagan gods (this includes drawings/paintings of Mary, little Jesus, the bearded father god, the Trinity-gods etc.)?

    Now that I have shown you that god/gods do exist, and since neither of them claimed that they created the Heavens and the Earth, why not look for our One True Creator who did claim He created the heavens and the earth, including Angels and us men!?

    Now I cannot show you an image of Him because no "image" could ever be crafted that would do near the justice He deserves. Besides, men would just start worshipping that 'idol' of God, and miss out on a personal relationship with their Creator!

    God is Real, and no one has ever seen, nor can see God with their physical eyes because He is Spirit, .. just as our mind is.

    John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    And yes, .. here you might say: "But that's the Bible, .. men wrote the Bible so why should I believe that?"
    I could say the same thing about the stories on Evolution theory: "written by men, why should I believe it?"

    DawnBringerRiven said:For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    Yes, that is the "scientific method", but lets see how exactly is it that we decide on these predictions?

    All the information that we do outside the body, is in the physical realm, correct? We use our hands, tools, look with our eyes, .. and umm, .. and then what happens?
    All that information is digitized and sent to different parts of our brain, from where "us", the "mind" analyzes it all and decides what to make of it. Decide whether it's true or false, is it real, or fake!?
    The information on both (fake or real) is the same to our minds eye.
    In other words let's take a child and put a 5'5" poster of mommy next to her real mommy standing there. The information transmitted from both objects are the same. The child, or the child's "mind" will have to decide which is what, and which is which?

    The same if I described my wife in writing, by a picture, and her standing there right in front of you, the information going to you the mind is the same.

    Now which of the three different digital information that you have present in your mind could you claim; "does not exist", .. or honestly say that "I don't believe your wife exists"?
    DawnBringerRiven
  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    "Convince me God is not real"

    But, where is the evidence that a God exists? I do not get it.

    Well the evidence for the god-Shiva, I would present you with a picture, or maybe even a statue of Shiva, and other information from Hindu Religious books on him, which should convince you that Shiva exists.
    If you still claim to be an atheist who claim gods don't exist, I would drop the statue on your toes in hopes it will open your eyes and be a believer, or a theist.

    You see, theists believe that man-made gods exist, and for the life of me, I don't know how, or even why atheists can deny these obvious facts that "gods exist"??
  • Evidence said:
    "First, which God/gods are you talking about, that you believe "don't exist"? Because scientifically speaking, One uncreated-Creator does exist, and I would like to see someone prove otherwise?" I believe you misunderstand my argument. The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive. In the end, we choose to believe based on what is more convenient for us. I wasn't referencing any specific God. Just simply a higher being.
    For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    @DawnBringerRiven said: "The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive"

    So billions and billions of people are bowing down to these "statues" of gods that don't really exist?

    Oh they exist all right, even the Bible talks about them:

    Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    The work of men’s hands.
    16 They have mouths, but they do not speak;
    Eyes they have, but they do not see;
    17 They have ears, but they do not hear;
    Nor is there any breath in their mouths.
    18 Those who make them are like them;
    So is everyone who trusts in them.

    http://www.magicalomaha.com/godgoddessstatury.htm?pi=4

    These are all real gods and goddesses, and people do various things to worship them, .. including but not limited to 'killing their own children' as an offering to them. How can all these gods be nonexistent? Is there a "nonexistent" statue, or story of Odin, or Thor, Shiva or Gaia? Or has anyone seen and met Odin or Thor other than in comics and fairytale books, and now in movies? Which version of Odin and Thor does not exist? Can you, or anyone show me a more real version of any of the pagan gods (this includes drawings/paintings of Mary, little Jesus, the bearded father god, the Trinity-gods etc.)?

    Now that I have shown you that god/gods do exist, and since neither of them claimed that they created the Heavens and the Earth, why not look for our One True Creator who did claim He created the heavens and the earth, including Angels and us men!?

    Now I cannot show you an image of Him because no "image" could ever be crafted that would do near the justice He deserves. Besides, men would just start worshipping that 'idol' of God, and miss out on a personal relationship with their Creator!

    God is Real, and no one has ever seen, nor can see God with their physical eyes because He is Spirit, .. just as our mind is.

    John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    And yes, .. here you might say: "But that's the Bible, .. men wrote the Bible so why should I believe that?"
    I could say the same thing about the stories on Evolution theory: "written by men, why should I believe it?"

    DawnBringerRiven said:For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    Yes, that is the "scientific method", but lets see how exactly is it that we decide on these predictions?

    All the information that we do outside the body, is in the physical realm, correct? We use our hands, tools, look with our eyes, .. and umm, .. and then what happens?
    All that information is digitized and sent to different parts of our brain, from where "us", the "mind" analyzes it all and decides what to make of it. Decide whether it's true or false, is it real, or fake!?
    The information on both (fake or real) is the same to our minds eye.
    In other words let's take a child and put a 5'5" poster of mommy next to her real mommy standing there. The information transmitted from both objects are the same. The child, or the child's "mind" will have to decide which is what, and which is which?

    The same if I described my wife in writing, by a picture, and her standing there right in front of you, the information going to you the mind is the same.

    Now which of the three different digital information that you have present in your mind could you claim; "does not exist", .. or honestly say that "I don't believe your wife exists"?
    *sigh* Text on a book holds absolutely no weight in this discussion when against an atheist. Did you not read my supernatural analogy? Actually, did half of my entire argument fly over your head? I have already said that we can not trust the word of others and explained why, yet here you are presenting an entire argument that can be summed up with, "But this person said!!!" or, "I read this in a book!!!!" but then continued to say that I am the one who is crazy for believing what other people has told me. Except, I don't believe what someone says just because they are prominent, I believe what I can replicate and test in myself as I have stated in my argument. Actually, I don't even believe in evolution. I merely believe in its possibility to be true, as I can not test and discern that this theory actually happens myself. And no, I don't believe your wife exists, as I have no reason to believe so, (as I have also stated above by the way.) I don't quite understand what you're trying to say about the scientific method, but I believe your argument is, "Our mind decides what is fake or real, so there is no true fake or real..."? I have already addressed the argument that God is too high of a being for us to be able to understand in my argument.
  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    "First, which God/gods are you talking about, that you believe "don't exist"? Because scientifically speaking, One uncreated-Creator does exist, and I would like to see someone prove otherwise?" I believe you misunderstand my argument. The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive. In the end, we choose to believe based on what is more convenient for us. I wasn't referencing any specific God. Just simply a higher being.
    For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    @DawnBringerRiven said: "The evidence regarding God's existence or inexistence are both inconclusive"

    So billions and billions of people are bowing down to these "statues" of gods that don't really exist?

    Oh they exist all right, even the Bible talks about them:

    Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    The work of men’s hands.
    16 They have mouths, but they do not speak;
    Eyes they have, but they do not see;
    17 They have ears, but they do not hear;
    Nor is there any breath in their mouths.
    18 Those who make them are like them;
    So is everyone who trusts in them.

    http://www.magicalomaha.com/godgoddessstatury.htm?pi=4

    These are all real gods and goddesses, and people do various things to worship them, .. including but not limited to 'killing their own children' as an offering to them. How can all these gods be nonexistent? Is there a "nonexistent" statue, or story of Odin, or Thor, Shiva or Gaia? Or has anyone seen and met Odin or Thor other than in comics and fairytale books, and now in movies? Which version of Odin and Thor does not exist? Can you, or anyone show me a more real version of any of the pagan gods (this includes drawings/paintings of Mary, little Jesus, the bearded father god, the Trinity-gods etc.)?

    Now that I have shown you that god/gods do exist, and since neither of them claimed that they created the Heavens and the Earth, why not look for our One True Creator who did claim He created the heavens and the earth, including Angels and us men!?

    Now I cannot show you an image of Him because no "image" could ever be crafted that would do near the justice He deserves. Besides, men would just start worshipping that 'idol' of God, and miss out on a personal relationship with their Creator!

    God is Real, and no one has ever seen, nor can see God with their physical eyes because He is Spirit, .. just as our mind is.

    John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    And yes, .. here you might say: "But that's the Bible, .. men wrote the Bible so why should I believe that?"
    I could say the same thing about the stories on Evolution theory: "written by men, why should I believe it?"

    DawnBringerRiven said:For your second question, I am speaking of the scientific method. "I trust that if you test hypotheses in a controlled situation, you can verify whether they are true or false based on whether they lead to accurate predictions."

    Yes, that is the "scientific method", but lets see how exactly is it that we decide on these predictions?

    All the information that we do outside the body, is in the physical realm, correct? We use our hands, tools, look with our eyes, .. and umm, .. and then what happens?
    All that information is digitized and sent to different parts of our brain, from where "us", the "mind" analyzes it all and decides what to make of it. Decide whether it's true or false, is it real, or fake!?
    The information on both (fake or real) is the same to our minds eye.
    In other words let's take a child and put a 5'5" poster of mommy next to her real mommy standing there. The information transmitted from both objects are the same. The child, or the child's "mind" will have to decide which is what, and which is which?

    The same if I described my wife in writing, by a picture, and her standing there right in front of you, the information going to you the mind is the same.

    Now which of the three different digital information that you have present in your mind could you claim; "does not exist", .. or honestly say that "I don't believe your wife exists"?
    *sigh* Text on a book holds absolutely no weight in this discussion when against an atheist. Did you not read my supernatural analogy? Actually, did half of my entire argument fly over your head? I have already said that we can not trust the word of others and explained why, yet here you are presenting an entire argument that can be summed up with, "But this person said!!!" or, "I read this in a book!!!!" but then continued to say that I am the one who is crazy for believing what other people has told me. Except, I don't believe what someone says just because they are prominent, I believe what I can replicate and test in myself as I have stated in my argument. Actually, I don't even believe in evolution. I merely believe in its possibility to be true, as I can not test and discern that this theory actually happens myself. And no, I don't believe your wife exists, as I have no reason to believe so, (as I have also stated above by the way.) I don't quite understand what you're trying to say about the scientific method, but I believe your argument is, "Our mind decides what is fake or real, so there is no true fake or real..."? I have already addressed the argument that God is too high of a being for us to be able to understand in my argument.

    @DawnBringerRiven said: *sigh* Text on a book holds absolutely no weight in this discussion when against an atheist.

    There are a lot of books on Evolution Theory, on atheism etc.  does your statement include that too?

    @Dawn -  Did you not read my supernatural analogy?

    No, I couldn't even find the word "supernatural" in your analogy. Besides, my God, our Creator is not of the "supernatural", that would be where the demons and evil spirits reside for now.

    @Dawn ;-  Actually, did half of my entire argument fly over your head? I have already said that we can not trust the word of others and explained why, yet here you are presenting an entire argument that can be summed up with, "But this person said!!!" or, "I read this in a book!!!!" but then continued to say that I am the one who is crazy for believing what other people has told me.

    Whaat? So you don't trust books or what other people tell you? My whole argument flew right over your head, obviously. Read it again, please?

    @Dawn - Except, I don't believe what someone says just because they are prominent, I believe what I can replicate and test in myself as I have stated in my argument. Actually, I don't even believe in evolution. I merely believe in its possibility to be true, as I can not test and discern that this theory actually happens myself.

    I was explaining about the "scientific process", how we should approach finding evidence for God, how we can "test and discern" this evidence of God, instead of relying on Religious Leaders like Dawkins, and Billy Graham for example. Read what I wrote again, I'm not against what you wrote, only trying to make you aware of things that's been hidden from us by our World Leaders, the Pharaohs and Kings we chose to follow instead of our Creator.

    @Dawn - And no, I don't believe your wife exists, as I have no reason to believe so, (as I have also stated above by the way.) I don't quite understand what you're trying to say about the scientific method, but I believe your argument is, "Our mind decides what is fake or real, so there is no true fake or real..."? I have already addressed the argument that God is too high of a being for us to be able to understand in my argument.

    So even if I shown you a word-description, a picture, and also my wife standing in front of you, you would have no reason to believe she exists?

    Yes, God IS too High, above anything He created. But this doesn't mean He is above our understanding. You see, religious leaders put that in our heads so we would not be aware that the gods that they preach is NOT the God of the Bible, our Creator.

    Sorry you missed what I was saying, must be my fault. But you do have to pay attention because it's not what we've been taught/programmed all these years. Religion has taken over our education, science, and dictate our entire lives, including what and how we should think about our physical and spiritual future.
  • Evidence.... has God ever personally gave you a word description of himself, a picture of himself, and stood directly in front of you where you could clearly see him? (That was not a chunk of rock e.g. statue)? No. So, I ask you, why do you believe in him? You act as if there is irrefutable proof he exists but you have yet to present any of this proof. No I do not blindly trust books or what people tell me. Why would I? I already stated that I believe in the possibility of truth, not strictly believing in or against most things. God isn't above our understanding? So do you believe science can come to prove God exists? And if so, after thousands of years why has science failed to give any irrefutable proof that God exists? "There are a lot of books on Evolution Theory, on atheism etc.  does your statement include that too?" I have already stated that I do not believe in evolution. You still have yet to rebuke my argument. You simply stated your disagreement with my argument and then presented new loosely related arguments in response to mine. 




  • EvidenceEvidence 813 Pts   -  
    @DawnBringerRiven said: Evidence.... has God ever personally gave you a word description of himself, a picture of himself, and stood directly in front of you where you could clearly see him? (That was not a chunk of rock e.g. statue)? No. So, I ask you, why do you believe in him?

    A word description of Himself, .. Yes!
    Picture, .. No. (Deuteronomy 4 -)

    As I observe the world around me (science) including the things I read (scientists do that too, .. a lot) I have actually seen God, as He is described in the Bible by Prophets of God who actually spoke to Him.
    Why do I believe what those "Prophets/Apostles" said are true? Because I, .. and you, .. and we all humans are evidence of this.
    My mind is Infinite, there is no limit to all the worlds, or universes that I could 'imagine' and see in there.
    You might say: "Oh, but those are not real!"
    Really? Tell me, what is the difference in your mind between looking at our world from way up there from one of NASA's Satellite balloons, and the one you create from your imagination? From a purely "mind perspective"?

    DawnBringerRiven - You act as if there is irrefutable proof he exists but you have yet to present any of this proof.

    I keep giving you guys proof, but what has been programmed in your "brain" keeps refuting what I say. Your brain keeps saying: "Nope, that's not real, you have to 'physically see', with your own eyes before you accept something as 'real'."  But what is the difference between what you actually see with your eyes, and what you are imagining?

    Take a NASA artist created/rendered (it says it right below the picture, so even NASA admits it is artist rendered) picture of a globe-earth, and another picture that NASA says; was taken by the Astronauts that they claim been on the moon? now tell me, how does your 'mind' know which is the real earth?

    DawnBringerRiven - No I do not blindly trust books or what people tell me. Why would I?

    I do, until I examine the content and verify it from what I have learned from observing the world around me? I believe you do that too, only you have never questioned a lot of what you have observed/read/seen in the world around you. I found that the more "public education" a person has, the harder it is for them to trust their mind. This is why scientists have to base their findings on a previous scientists finding, not to break that chain-of-thought. And since there is no other record of what I reveal here (other than in the Bible, which is why Religion confiscated the Bible and made it into a "religious book") people have been brainwashed to believe that the findings in there could not be used as evidence. Yet, why is it that what Pastor Dawkins, or the living-dead puppet Stephen Hawking says are all considered science!?


    DawnBringerRiven - I already stated that I believe in the possibility of truth, not strictly believing in or against most things. God isn't above our understanding? So do you believe science can come to prove God exists?

    But of course! Never EVER go to no religion to seek evidence for our Infinite Creator, they'll do anything to keep God from being revealed. Like I said, that's why "They" made the Bible a religious book, .. unusable for science!
    Yet it is where science should start, and end. If any theory cannot be proven by the Bible, it is a lie, an 'assumption' at best. There is nothing wrong with assuming, just don't call it a theory. You have to have a lot of other evidence for a theory.

    DawnBringerRiven - And if so, after thousands of years why has science failed to give any irrefutable proof that God exists? "There are a lot of books on Evolution Theory, on atheism etc.  does your statement include that too?" I have already stated that I do not believe in evolution. You still have yet to rebuke my argument. You simply stated your disagreement with my argument and then presented new loosely related arguments in response to mine.

    To answer your question to why "science failed to give any irrefutable proof that God exists?", well just look who, and how science started?

    Google - Wikipedia - Pierre Duhem's provocative thesis of the Catholic Church's Condemnation of 1277 led to the study of medieval science as a serious discipline, "but no one in the field any longer endorses his view that modern science started in 1277". .. Unlike many former historians (e.g. Voltaire and Condorcet), who denigrated the Middle Ages, he endeavored to show that the Roman Catholic Church had helped foster Western science in one of its most fruitful periods.

    And:
    Google - It is fair to say that Aristotle was the founder of empirical science, but the development of a scientific process resembling the modern method was developed by Muslim scholars, during the Golden age of Islam, and refined by the enlightenment scientist-philosophers.

    Religion birthed science, which was mostly about the cosmos, or Heaven and who should rule there!?  Or more like who They wanted man to believe should rule from there, as it is plainly revealed today. Here is a good example of the games they played "good guy bad guy", .. "science is good, science is bad" while controlling both, which is why I say "theism/atheism are two sides of the coin Religion".



    Now you see why science would never "prove the existence of God"?

    The Greeks gave us "theos/gods" and even named them as stars, and the Romans implemented them into the Bible. This is why they call our Infinite and Eternal Creator a "Deity who rules from the supernatural realm", can you imagine that? Who is it that rules from the supernatural realm other than Lucifer, Satan the devil and his angels?

    And what do Christian Ministers do to 'communicate' with these deities? They go to Catholic Jesuit built and run Schools of Divinity, where they get a degree in "Divination", .. they become 'mediums' to the Devil and his angels and other demonic beings, and principalities.

    Our God and Creators presence, and His message is revealed in, and from Heaven. God does not "divine" to no mediums, that is an abomination to God for us to turn to, and especially become mediums and communicate to demons in the supernatural realm.

    Once you start to understand that Religion controls science and education, our world governments, then you will understand why they cannot let us find God, our Only Possible Infinite Creator through science, which is the "search for the truth", because that would be the end of any religion along with their god/gods.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch