Does God Actually Exist

elijah44

Short answer: no (if you want a longer answer just ask me)

Factfinder

Nope. But for some reason a lot of folks think it does.

nicholaschumbley

@Factfinder @elijah44 Why do people still hold on to the belief in a god? Personally, I think it's mostly due to the fear of death and the unknown.

Factfinder

@nicholaschumbley

Well if you read the bible the doctrine is hell if one doesn't believe. Bend the knee or else seems to work on the simple minded. Which can equate to the fear of the unknown as you said. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@nicholaschumbley ;  Evidence for our Creator is extant in Nature and in Jesus and who deny this will be "without excuse" at Judgment...you will believe what is written and provided you by the Holy Spirit and find life in Eternity through the forgiveness of sin and redemption offered freely by faith in Jesus as Messiah or you'll deny and perish in atheistic ignorance and suffer the "second death" in Hell as your unrepentant, unredeemed, sin will NOT be permitted to enter the Kingdom of Elohim (John 3; Rev 21:27; Rev 20:11-15).

Barnardot

@nicholaschumbley ;religious narratives to childhood myths all provide compelling reasons to question the existence of God.

Thats a very well presented post you poasted there. I would say that those are compelling reasons to not just ask questions but also proves the non existence of God. 

I think that nower days that most people dont actually believe in God. And were talking about 80% of people here. Religion has been in ground in to our cultures and most people just go a long with the traditions and festivals and feasts and meeting people. So these people conveniently say they believe in God. Its the remaining 20% who we need to be concerned about. 

They are deluded and the negative side of there belief is ugly. Not only do they hear voices in there heads but they are told to have hate against minority groups like gays and unwed mothers and the right to have abortions. And to go round with the notion that your going to burn in Hell if you dont obey is surely very damaging not only to these people and there attitudes but to others around them.

Barnardot

@elijah44 ;Short answer: no (if you want a longer answer just ask me)

If I'm not mistaken Im pretty sure that just saying "No" has never won a debate. Please correct me if Im wrong here. Of course the only one who can give a one word answer like that and get a way with it is God.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;Evidence for our Creator is extant in Nature

Well thats pretty contradicktory because millions of experts have found that evidence of no God is extant in nature. 

If some one from an other universe comes here and asks the question who is he going to believe? A few extremists suffering from delusions with no reasoning or evidence or millions of sound minded scientists who throughly researched the subject and came up with shite loads of evidence?

MayCaesar

When talking about meta-narratives of teleological level of sophistication, you have to make sure that the question you are asking has been properly questioned. What do you mean by "does"? What do you mean by "god"? What do you mean by "actually"? What do you mean by "exist"? Now, postmodernists will say that the narrative of the feminist theory overwrites the meta-narrative of the Biblical Corpus. But I would argue that the meta-meta-narrative of the meta-Biblical Corpus is that which is at the top of the hierarchical structure, the bottom of which goes beyond the level of the lobster.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;When talking about meta-narratives of teleological level of sophistication

Well I reckon lobster telephone.

Joeseph

If a god did exist its not worthy of worship as why would someone worship an entity that would watch a child being raped and do nothing?

The main reason people believe is because of  indoctrination religions are reliant on it.

Barnardot

@Joeseph You hit it right on the nail there.
People want to rape children and God will do bugger all.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; @Barnardot ; @MayCaesar ; Elohim allows free will...the evilness of men will be dealt with in Time and in Eternity....you owe worship to the One who provided you life and died for you that you might live with Him eternally via the forgiveness of your sin...you owe our Creator everything...even your next breath. How hypocritical of you to suggest Elohim is unconcerned about the abuse of children when you advocate for the mutilation of babies in the womb...you are evil at the root.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ;  Show me no evidence for our Creator in Nature by explaining nature, matter, the human genome via naturalistic origins... you can't and you will die in Hell in your sin without Jesus as your Mediator.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;

Free will is an illusion.

Also I'm talking about the evil your genocidal god is guilty off , you god would watch a child being raped and do nothing you call his inaction morally good because like your god you're an evil c- nt

MayCaesar

Joeseph said:

If a god did exist its not worthy of worship as why would someone worship an entity that would watch a child being raped and do nothing?

The main reason people believe is because of  indoctrination religions are reliant on it.

It depends. If the goddess is Aphrodite, then I would totally worship her. Preferably in bed.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

Sure beats having to kiss the Christian gods a-s for eternity and  playing a harp on a cloud 
.....

MayCaesar

@Joeseph

Hmm, when you put it this way, perhaps I should retract my statement... I am all for worshiping Aphrodite, but if it means satisfying her in bed 24/7 for eternity, then I might not be up to the task. Maybe we could alternate activities: do the worship stuff, then play some chess, then do a hike, then do more of the worship stuff?

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

That sounds just about right. I wax also thinking  It would be interesting if one did meet the Christian god and asked it to explain how it works that when he watches daily millions of kids around the world being sexually abused that he does nothing but watches and thats a " morally " sound decision because he's god?

Or why if he knows every possible thing  we will do till our time comes he still insists on going ahead with the whole charade.

I would predict that god would again take on his undisputed role of universal hide and seek champion

elijah44

@nicholaschumbley, that is probably it, the fear of dying and what’s after. a lot of people take comfort when they have an idea of what’s in the unknown. (Also a lot of people are just raised to be Christian)

elijah44

@RickeyHoltsclaw, but if you go against him you will be tortured for eternity, doesn’t sound like free will to me

elijah44

@Barnardot, I was sort of busy at the time, I can come up with a longer debate it’s just that I have a life to live.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Updated July 2, 2024 at RickeyHoltsClaws expense!

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW'S BIBLE MORALITY 101 THINKING, IS THAT HIS JESUS AS GOD TRULY EXISTS, AND THEREFORE HE HAS TO FOLLOW HIS GOD'S EDICTS AS SHOWN IN THIS REVEALING LIST SHOWN BELOW, PRAISE!

"But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

1.  Rickey accepts that Lot’s two daughters had ungodly incestuous sex with their father, and biblically this is okay with Jesus as god!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181225/#Comment_181225

2. Rickey accepts that if anyone tries to make him worship another god, then biblically he is to murder that person!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181425/#Comment_181425

3. Rickey accepts that if his daughter is not a virgin upon her wedding night, then biblically he is to murder her along with others helping him!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181621/#Comment_181621  

4. Rickey accepts that if his children do not follow his rules, then biblically he is to BEAT THEM WITH A ROD that leaves bruises!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181685/#Comment_181685

5. Ricky accepts that if there are hard times, or for whatever reason, then biblically he could sell his daughter into slavery, praise Jesus!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181705/#Comment_181705

6. Rickey accepts that his god Jesus biblically is an outright BRUTAL ABORTIONIST, and therefore he can’t attend Anti-Abortion Rallies because he would be a hypocrite!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181919/#Comment_181919

7. Rickey accepts that his god's words say that his biblically 2nd class wife cannot speak in church, and is to just "STFU" when going to church!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181954/#Comment_181954

8. Rickey has to accept that he has to HATE his family members, and his children, to be a disciple of Jesus, praise!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181975/#Comment_181975

9. Rickey accepts biblically that if a Christian owns a slave, THEN JESUS SAYS they can BEAT THEM MERCILESSLY, praise Jesus!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181979/#Comment_181979

10. Rickey biblically accepts that if he sees a christian working on the Sabbath, then his bible says to murder them!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181981/#Comment_181981

11. Rickey biblically accepts that if your children curse him or their mother, then said child is to be put to death, praise Jesus!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181982/#Comment_181982

12. Rickey biblically accepts that his Jesus as god screwed up when creating mankind through INCESTUAL SEXUAL RELATIONS through family members!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/181984/#Comment_181984

13. Rickey biblically without question, accepts that his second class wife's existence is to be ruled over by him because he is the superior man, praise Jesus!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182059/#Comment_182059

14. Rickey biblically accepts that if his wife helps him in a fight with another man, he is to cut off her hand for helping him, praise Jesus' disparaging words towards women!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182060/#Comment_182060

15. Rickey accepts that when his wife becomes a pain in the butt, Jesus' inspired words tell him to do the following, praise Jesus' words against women again!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182061/#Comment_182061

16.  Rickey has to biblically accept that his god Jesus DEMANDED his Jewish creation "EAT THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS AND NEIGHBORS!" Ewwwwwwww, bad Jesus!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182078/#Comment_182078

17. Rickey has to biblically accept that his Jesus as god said to him that he is to sell ALL of his possessions and give to the poor and needy, of which he has not done! 

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182079/#Comment_182079

18. Rickey has to biblically accept again, that his god Jesus says to "murder homosexuals" and where he cannot say Jesus is wrong in this respect!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182080/#Comment_182080

19. Rickey has to biblically accept the fact of how a Christian man is to seek out a 2nd class biblical woman for his wife, praise Jesus' examples!  

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182089/#Comment_182089

20. Rickey biblically accepts that his 2nd class wife is a loser and knows nothing and is the "weaker vessel" of their marriage, so says Jesus' inspired words as god!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182090/#Comment_182090

21. Rickey once again has to biblically accept that if he truly believes, he can pick up a "Rattle Snake," drink Drano, and heal a cancer patient, so saith Jesus as god!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182091/#Comment_182091

22. Rickey biblically accepts that his Jesus as god was into ungodly PEDOPHILIA! How sickening can Jesus get???!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182110/#Comment_182110

23.  Rickey biblically accepts that his Jesus assisted in the raping of innocent women!  Jesus is ever loving and forgiving? NOT!!!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182111/#Comment_182111

24. Rickey biblically accepts this time, in that his Jesus has a rape law that makes the woman that was raped to marry her rapist and have his baby!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182112/#Comment_182112

25. Rickey has to biblically accept again that his primitive Bronze and Iron Age faith is Christianity is based upon FEAR!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182199/#Comment_182199

26. Rickey outright biblically accepts that his primitive faith of Christianity preys upon innocent children that can be scared to death of their faith!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182200/#Comment_182200

27. Rickey unfortunately has to accept that his JESUS AS GOD MURDERED INNOCENT INFANTS AND SUCKLING BABIES, where how can he be considered ever loving and forgiving?!  

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/182201/#Comment_182201

28. Rickey accepts that his biblical 2nd class wife is not to teach, or to usurp his authority over him, but to remain SILENT when at home and out and about!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/184362/#Comment_184362

29. Rickey has told his wife that she cannot speak in church whatsoever, and she is to remain SILENT as Jesus’ words have told her, praise!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/184363/#Comment_184363

30. Rickey has obviously told his biblical 2nd class wife that he rules over her existance, and she is at his beckon call 24/7/365 in everething that he demands!!!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/184364/#Comment_184364

.

Barnardot

@elijah44 ;I was sort of busy at the time, I can come up with a longer debate it’s just that I have a life to live.

You said:

Short answer: no (if you want a longer answer just ask me)

Now how many more crap excuses are you going to come up with.

Or is it more a matter of your life being more important than others and I have to make an application online that goes through a qualifying stage before it goes to a committee before they pass there recommendation to His Royal Highness who may at his excretion grant an opportunity to schedule it in His Almightiness's Outlook.

Oh my Lord and Master I know how much greater than every one else you are but I beg of you please just grant me a debate reply and all it needs is for thou to pull thou's head out from thou's Holy a hole for 2 minutes depending upon your typing speed.

elijah44

Argument Topic: No excuses, just don’t have time

@Barnardot, fine. 

The idea of a god existing is just plain , a big man up in the sky who is all knowing and all powerful, sounds like believing in Zeus or some other god. But, the thing that really doesn’t make sense, is how god (who’s supposed to be perfect) would allow baby killing, rape, genocide and so much more and he would ignore all of this today and not do anything about it. Now don’t me and say, “well no one is perfect” or “god had a reason to let a guy kill 6 million Jews”. Because you know that he really hasn’t done anything for us, he hasn’t stopped genocide (he’s even allowed it), he hasn’t prevented murder, he hasn’t stopped wars, and if he’s supposed be the greatest being of all time he wouldn’t let that happen. And when things like that do stop, you praise god, when it was most likely humans that solved the issue. Also, I think a god who “loves all” wouldn’t let his children suffer for all of eternity, infinite punishment for finite crimes, that’s unfair. And the fact that god sounds so much like a dictator, if someone doesn’t agree with him they suffer the worst fate for all of eternity, feels like every Christian is following god out of fear. And even if they don’t fear him, they have to depend on him for all of their thoughts and actions, it seems they don’t have free thought or free will. The next thing is just the evidence, a bunch of people say: “it’s impossible to disprove god cause you don’t know if he exists or not” Well that’s just dumb, that could apply to the dumbest things. I could say, “well it’s impossible to disprove lizard people because we don’t know if they are real or not.” Which sound ridiculous, but that’s the same thing as saying god could exist because you can’t disprove him. Also, god is a possibility, not a probability. Possibility is pretty much a yes or no, and probability is pretty much percentage which is chance (like a dice or a coin flip). I obviously think that god existence is a no. the bible   is just saying that god is real with extremely minimal evidence, while actual science is based off of facts that are supported by evidence. It’s faith vs facts. I obviously trust facts

p.s: I was really tired while writing this, so there’s probably spelling mistakes, or stuff that doesn’t make sense. Also barnadot, saying that I have a life to live isn’t an excuse, I can’t debate all day.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Do you think your god will remain the undisputed  Universal hide and seek champion for another couple of billion years?

Never even shows up for his sons birthday .......maybe he's committed suicide?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; No, Jesus introduced the Father in Person for all of humanity to see, feel, touch, interact with. Jesus will judge you for your blasphemy...you will reap what you're sowing.

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[d] from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[e] 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[f] who is at the Father's side,[g] he has made him known. John 1 (ESV)

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Do you have a debatable premise or is Gish Galloping your tactic to justify your path to Hell in atheism? Are you fearful of a legitimate premise that can be responded too?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Is there a singular debatable premise in there somewhere; if so, bring it forth.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Jesus introduced the Father in Person for all of humanity to see, feel, touch, interact with. 

Did he indeed ? What's he look like seeing as you've seen him? What language did he speak to you ? Where did he touch you ? Do you need your safe corner after the touching?  How did you interact?  Chess  ? Cooking?  Watching porn? Do tell.............

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; The Holy Spirit tells us that Jesus was not necessarily attractive and His "language" of choice at His appearing was Aramaic....Jesus is my Savior, His Spirit lives within me....I am safe in Him as my Lord and my eternity is secure...how about you?

Data

@nicholaschumbley

On your first point: Empirical is defined by Webster's dictionary as 1. originating in or based on observation or experience 2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory, 3.  capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Evidence is defined (ibid) as 1 a: an outward sign : indication 1 b: something that furnishes proof : testimony. 2. one who bears witness. By this definition there is most certainly no lack of empirical evidence of God, but that only demonstrates the uncertainty of empirical evidence itself and the average ignorance of the skeptical approach to the subject. So, we have to define God. God is defined (ibid) as 1. the supreme or ultimate reality: such as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe. b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind. 2. or less commonly God: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers. 3. a person or thing of supreme value. 4. a powerful ruler.  The English word God was used first by the pagans and was later applied to the Christian God because it was derived from a root meaning "to pour; libate." The word was used by the pagans in association with sacrifice, invoking (i.e. prayer) heaven (high), etc. 

So, a god is anything or anyone who is attributed a might greater than the one attributing it and therefore venerated. The god doesn't have to literally exist, but it can (Amaterasu, Kim Jong-Un respectively) and there's your empirical evidence. The flaw in your application is that an assumption made from ignorance and a lack of specificity. 

MayCaesar

Joeseph said:

@MayCaesar

That sounds just about right. I wax also thinking  It would be interesting if one did meet the Christian god and asked it to explain how it works that when he watches daily millions of kids around the world being sexually abused that he does nothing but watches and thats a " morally " sound decision because he's god?

Or why if he knows every possible thing  we will do till our time comes he still insists on going ahead with the whole charade.

I would predict that god would again take on his undisputed role of universal hide and seek champion

Plot twist: the god himself is an atheist. He has been created by the mega-god who hid himself from him. The god thinks himself the original god and then similarly hides himself from humans.

Joeseph

@Data


The god doesn't have to literally exist, but it can (Amaterasu, Kim Jong-Un respectively) and there's your empirical evidence. 

It's pretty obvious he talking about the christian god " creator of the universe " , your protests are invalid

Data

@Joeseph

If the Christian gods exist or not isn't reflected upon in the criteria of the empirical evidence which he suggested was lacking. If people worship the Christian god the existence as a god is evident, the testimony provided. My argument isn't invalidated by the ignorance or lack of specifics. They are irrelevant because the literal existence of a god or God isn't necessary. A god is anything or anyone venerated. 

MayCaesar

@Data

What you are doing is a sleight of hand: you redefine word "god" to justify his existence. This is a pretty pointless exercise, as it can be applied to anything. Do unicorns exist? Yes, a unicorn is something or someone venerated for its/his/her beauty. Boom, checkmate, unicorn deniers!

Jordan Peterson does the same thing. He defines "god" as something at the top of the hierarchy of values and says, "Surely the hierarchy has to end somewhere, right? That is the divine, or god". First, there is no reason to assume that the hierarchy ever ends, or that it is even linear (it can be a multidimensional structure: it is impossible to say, for instance, whether beauty has more value than safety) - and second, this definition has nothing to do with "gods" that religions refer to.

Another thing you are doing is using word "existence" overly flexibly. When we talk about whether "god" exists, we mean its actual presence in the world. We do not mean its presence in human minds. What exists in this world is a bunch of human brains that imagine said god, but the image of the god does not map onto anything existing in the world.

I am currently reading the Legend of Drizzt series by Salvatore. Does Drizzt exist, the dark elf in the Forgotten Realms universe? By your logic, I would have to say, "Yes, he does: after all, he exists in my imagination and in the books". By this logic, anything I can imagine exists. By definition, the answer to question "Does X exist?" will always be "Yes" regardless of what X is, since the very fact that I could formulate this question suggests that I have a conception of X in my mind.

I really dislike this kind of, pardon my French, sophistry. Playing around with definitions of words and muddying waters while obscuring the actual issue being discussed is not very useful.

Joeseph

@Data


If the Christian gods exist or not isn't reflected upon in the criteria of the empirical evidence which he suggested was lacking

The " criteria" required is in the meaning of the term " empirical".



. If people worship the Christian god the existence as a god is evident, the testimony provided.

No it's obviously not , to worship anything in no way proves the object of one's veneration. What testimony  are you referring to?



 My argument isn't invalidated by the ignorance or lack of specifics.

It is for reasons I've explained.


 They are irrelevant because the literal existence of a god or God isn't necessary. A god is anything or anyone venerated. 

Nonsense.

Data

@MayCaesar

What I'm doing is pointing out the usual uninformed skeptical/atheist argument. I'm not justifying the literal existence of the Biblical God whose name, in English, is Jehovah. I gave the etymology and definition of the word. Your argument, as presented in the OP and your response, is typically unsophisticated, uneducated, uninformed, and ideological. 

Data

@Joeseph

If you are arguing the existence of gods you are bound by the definition given or we must agree on an alternative which you provide. That argument isn't sustainable by "empirical evidence." That is my point. If you are arguing against the literal existence of a specific God, Jehovah of the Bible, for example, then you've lost the argument by suggesting empirical evidence is sustainable because, a, it isn't as I've clearly demonstrated with sources and definitions which the OP hasn't provided; and b. science can't test the supernatural as in the case of Jehovah. So, you've lost either way. 

MayCaesar

Data said:

@MayCaesar

What I'm doing is pointing out the usual uninformed skeptical/atheist argument. I'm not justifying the literal existence of the Biblical God whose name, in English, is Jehovah. I gave the etymology and definition of the word. Your argument, as presented in the OP and your response, is typically unsophisticated, uneducated, uninformed, and ideological. 

The definition you used at the end of your original comment is different from the definition you cited. You defined god as "anything or anyone who is attributed a might greater than the one attributing it and therefore venerated", but there is nothing in the prior definition that would lead to this conclusion.

I am also not sure what you mean by the usual skeptical/atheist argument being "uninformed". Sure, I do not know the Bible as well as the average Christian - but that does not mean that I reject their big claims about the world on uninformed grounds. If their argument is logically incoherent, then I can reject it without informing myself on the details of their world view. It is similar to how I know mathematics much better than 99% of the population, yet if I say that 2+2=5, the anyone should be able to say, "You are wrong", regardless of how much of mathematics they know.

Joeseph

@Data

If you are arguing the existence of gods you are bound by the definition given or we must agree on an alternative which you provide

.I'm Atheist.,the burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim , the OP hasn't made a definitive claim he actually says .....there is ".compelling reasons to question the existence of God." 

That argument isn't sustainable by "empirical evidence."

But he hasn't made the mistake of saying there is no god for certain , there is no burden on him

. That is my point. If you are arguing against the literal existence of a specific God, Jehovah of the Bible, for example, then you've lost the argument by suggesting empirical evidence is sustainable because, a, it isn't 

I cannot say for certain a god doesn't exist but I say the very same thing about Zeus , Posiden , Wotan etc ,etc 

So using your logic I cannot argue against the existence of Zeus right? That's what you're saying.


as I've clearly demonstrated with sources and definitions which the OP hasn't provided; and b. science can't test the supernatural as in the case of Jehovah.

You've clearly demonstrated nothing you've posted several definitions and  personal musings like this .which is illogical.......


, a god is anything or anyone who is attributed a might greater than the one attributing it and therefore venerated. The god doesn't have to literally exist, but it can (Amaterasu, Kim Jong-Un respectively) and there's your empirical evidence. 


 So, you've lost either way. I0@MayCaesar

"Lost either way ".......Fabulous a win / win argument in your favour of course

Nice , a self proclaimed winner, Pull up another chair for that ego.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar


Or , what's the one thing god might be tempted to do?  Commit suicide,  as Satan might wager him he couldn't  do it and being the ultimate egotist  he would have to try it ...........there's the big bang for you  gods suicide a truly explosive event

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE 30 DISGUSTING BIBLICAL PROPOSITIONS THAT I HAVE BROUGHT FORTH: "@21CenturyIconoclast ; Is there a singular debatable premise in there somewhere; if so, bring it forth."
"https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/184366/#Comment_184366"

Rickey, you just stay upon the sidelines relative to my post in the link above, and this is because you ADMIT that you cannot refute any of my 30 totally deplorable Christian propositions shown, otherwise you would have "tried" to take each one and have done so, BUT YOU CANT in the name of Jesus as he watches you not defending Christianity as he told you to do in the verse below:

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) 

Rickey, can you spell L-O-S-E-R ....... after running away from my post in question, and Jesus in not being able to defend the faith,  sure you can! LOL!

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW'S BIBLICAL 2ND CLASS WIFE READING ONE OF 
THE MANY DEPLORABLE BIBLE NARRATIVES WITH A VERY QUIZZICAL
DISTURBED LOOK ON HER FACE AND THINKING, ?!  LOL!

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE ...."RICKEYHOLSTCLAW" .... THAT USES LAME EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM HIS SICKENING BIBLE BECAUSE HE CANNOT DEFEND IT, WILL BE .......?




.

MayCaesar

Joeseph said:

@MayCaesar


Or , what's the one thing god might be tempted to do?  Commit suicide,  as Satan might wager him he couldn't  do it and being the ultimate egotist  he would have to try it ...........there's the big bang for you  gods suicide a truly explosive event

Hmm, I think there might be a problem with this. Omnipotence probably logically prevents the ability to commit suicide, since committing suicide deprives the being from being able to do anything.

This is just one of the issues with the concept of "omnipotence". There are many other ones. What does it really mean to be infinitely powerful and able to do anything? It definitely does not mean the ability to produce a statement that is simultaneously true and false. Or the ability to create an immovable rock and then move it.

Barnardot

@Data ;They are irrelevant because the literal existence of a god or God isn't necessary. A god is anything or anyone venerated. 

Well you have a good point that you are pointing out there because all the crap about God that is venerated in side the head of a believer is called delusion and religious nits proberly have a hole heap of other unessessarily existent stuff venerating around the void between there ears.

nicholaschumbley

@Barnardot @RickeyHoltsclaw ;

The story of Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible, raises questions about its feasibility from a scientific and logistical standpoint. Here's an overview of some key considerations:

1. Size of the Ark

• The Bible describes the Ark as being 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high (approximately 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high).
• Constructing a wooden vessel of this size using ancient technology would have been an extraordinary feat. Modern engineers and historians debate whether it would have been seaworthy.

2. Gathering the Animals

• The Ark would have needed to house two of every "kind" of land animal. The logistics of gathering millions of species from around the world would be extremely challenging.
• Additionally, providing food, water, and proper living conditions for all these animals for over a year would require immense planning and resources.

3. Global Flood

• A global flood of the magnitude described would have required an enormous amount of water—enough to cover the highest mountains. The source of this water and where it went afterward is unclear from a scientific perspective.
• Geological evidence does not support a global flood, though there are records of significant regional floods in ancient times.

4. Genetic Diversity

• Starting with just two individuals of each species would result in severe genetic bottlenecks. This would reduce genetic diversity and potentially lead to inbreeding issues.

5. Historical and Cultural Context

• Flood myths are common in many cultures, which suggests a shared human experience of significant flooding events in ancient history. The story of Noah’s Ark may be one of many such myths, each adapted to the cultural context of the time.

6. Faith and Interpretation

• For many, the story of Noah's Ark is a matter of faith and religious belief. It may be interpreted allegorically rather than literally, conveying moral or spiritual lessons rather than historical facts.
• While it may not be possible to definitively prove that God doesn't exist, I can present evidence showing that certain aspects of the story are scientifically impossible.

Scientific Challenges to the Noah's Ark Story

From a physics standpoint, several aspects of the Noah's Ark story as described in the Bible present significant challenges. Here are some specific points where the story conflicts with known principles of physics:

1. Buoyancy and Structural Integrity

• Buoyancy: For the Ark to float, it must displace a volume of water equal to its own weight (Archimedes' principle). The described dimensions of the Ark (450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high) would give it a volume capable of displacing a substantial amount of water. However, the weight of the Ark, plus all the animals, food, and supplies, would be immense. Ensuring the Ark remained buoyant and stable would be challenging.
• Structural Integrity: Constructing a wooden vessel of this size using ancient technology would raise concerns about its structural integrity. Wooden ships face issues like hull bending and leakage, especially at larger sizes. The largest wooden ships built in recorded history often faced significant structural problems.

2. Water Source and Distribution

• Water Volume: To cover the highest mountains, the Earth would need a colossal amount of additional water. This amount of water does not exist on Earth today. The source of this water, as well as where it went after the flood receded, is not explained in a way that aligns with our understanding of the Earth's water cycle.
• Hydrostatic Pressure: If the entire planet were covered in water to such a depth, the hydrostatic pressure at the lower levels would be immense. This pressure would affect both the Ark and the organisms inside it.

3. Animal Care and Environment

• Environmental Conditions: Maintaining an environment suitable for such a diverse array of species on the Ark would be nearly impossible. Different species require specific humidity, temperature, and space conditions, which would be difficult to provide in a single enclosed structure.
• Air Quality: Ensuring proper ventilation for both the animals and humans aboard would be crucial. The buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases in such a confined space would be a significant issue without modern ventilation systems.

4. Post-Flood Ecological Recovery

• Habitat Destruction: A global flood would destroy ecosystems and habitats, making it difficult for the surviving animals to find food and shelter once the waters receded.
• Repopulation and Genetic Diversity: As mentioned earlier, starting with just two individuals of each species would lead to genetic bottlenecks. This lack of genetic diversity would pose serious challenges to the repopulation and long-term survival of many species.

5. Hydrodynamic Forces

• Wave and Current Dynamics: A global flood would involve extremely powerful waves and currents, posing additional challenges to the structural integrity of the Ark and the safety of its inhabitants.

In conclusion, from a physics perspective, many aspects of the Noah's Ark story are implausible. The principles of buoyancy, structural integrity, environmental conditions, and the sheer logistics of gathering and caring for so many animals present significant challenges that conflict with our understanding of physics and engineering.

4o

just_sayin

@nicholaschumbley
1. "Lack of Empirical Evidence": One of the strongest arguments against the existence of God is the lack of empirical evidence. Despite extensive exploration and scientific advancement, there is no concrete, testable proof that a deity exists. Scientific methods rely on observable and measurable evidence, and without such evidence, the existence of God remains speculative.

There are a lot parts to the OPs argument.  I'll only address one or 2 points at a time.

If by empirical you mean God is like inanimate matter and can be put under a microscope, then you will not 'prove' God.  However, I do believe God has provided us much evidence of His existence.

1) The big bang singularity - is evidence for God.  The big bang is the predominate view of the origin of the universe at this time.  There are a lot of problems with it, like the missing dark energy and dark matter (95% of the 'stuff' needed for the theory is missing).  However, it does appear that working backwards, one gets to a point where there is zero space.  Just how much stuff can you fit in zero space?  According to atheists, entire universes.  There are lots of models to try and explain this.  However, they all fail and break fundamental laws.  For example, the cyclic universe theory has been debunked because there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause a big crunch (that's assuming the 95% of the missing mass in the universe is real).  Further, even in efficient systems there is energy loss, so the universe would have stopped bouncing a literal infinity ago.  

Inflationary models were popular but the Borde, Guth, Vilenken theorem dispelled them.  It says that any universe, or multiverse, that is on average, expanding, can not be past eternal.  In other words, it has to have a beginning.  Beginnings need a cause.  Krauss has popularized the quantum fluctuation theory that was debunked in the 80's.  He claims that a quantum fluctuation brought the universe into existence.  There are a lot of problems with the theory - 1) the math doesn't work.  The amount of time that a fluctuation could exist that had the energy of a whole universe is much too short for the fundamental forces to form, so inflation would never have occurred.  It would just have popped out of existence.  2) If fluctuations happen like this all the time, then we should see lots of stuff popping into existence all the time - and more important - the radiation from all of these fluctuations having occurred over an eternity, should be deadly and not allow any life any more.  There are a lot more points I could make, but you get the idea.

Why does the big bang suggest there is a God.  The Kalam cosmological argument says 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.'  God is the best explanation for that cause.  The cause must be spaceless, timeless (eternal), and immaterial because it must exist outside of space-time to create space-time.  The cause must be powerful enough to create universes, and intelligent in order to initiate the creation of the universe.  

2) The fine tuning of the universe strongly suggest an intelligence as the source of the origin of the universe.  Nobel prize cosmologist Roger Penrose, who is an atheist,  calculated that the odds of a universe having a low initial entropy level that would allow for a universe to not immediately collapse from its weight on itself or have too low of a gravitational field for atoms to form and inflation to begins was Roger Penrose to be 1/10^10^123  a ridiculously unlikely chance.  Roger Penrose says, "incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe" and that the fine-tuning of the universe's initial entropy is precise.  The initial low entropy is but 1 example there are dozens of examples of the incredible fine tuning of the universe.  By the end of 2001, astronomers had identified more than 150 finely-tuned characteristics.  Here are just a few, from Stanford University:

• The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements (Carr & Rees 1979). If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that, inasmuch as still stable, they would have been much smaller and more short-lived (Adams 2008; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.1).
• The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). Had it been stronger by more than about 50%50%, almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe (MacDonald & Mullan 2009). Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal (Hoyle et al. 1953; Barrow & Tipler 1986: 252–253; Oberhummer et al. 2000; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.2).
• The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks—the up- and down-quark—seems fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007; Adams 2019: sect. 2.25). Partly, the fine-tuning of these two masses obtains relative to the strength of the weak force (Barr & Khan 2007). Changes in the difference between them have the potential to affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. There are also absolute constraints on the masses of the two lightest quarks (Adams 2019: fig. 5).
• The strength of the weak force seems to be fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979). If it were weaker by a factor of about 1010, there would have been much more neutrons in the early universe, leading very quickly to the formation of initially deuterium and tritium and soon helium. Long-lived stars such as the sun, which depend on hydrogen that they can burn to helium, would not exist. Further possible consequences of altering the strength of the weak force for the existence of life are explored by Hall et al. (2014).
• The cosmological constant characterizes the energy density ρV  of the vacuum. On theoretical grounds,  one would expect it to be larger than its actual value by an immense number of magnitudes. (Depending on the specific assumptions made, the discrepancy is between 10501050 and 1012310123.) However, only values of ρV a few order of magnitude larger than the actual value are compatible with the formation of galaxies (Weinberg 1987; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.6; Schellekens 2013: sect. 3). This constraint is relaxed if one considers universes with different baryon-to-photon ratios and different values of the number Q (discussed below), which quantifies density fluctuations in the early universe (Adams 2019: sect. 4.2)

3) The complexity of even the simplest life form.  The authors of the Anthropic Cosmological Principles, who are atheists,  show the odds for different steps in chemical evolution.  According to their research the odds of an intelligent life form like man, would require at least 10 miracle level events to occur.  The fact that after over 100 years and a million or more experiments, no one has been able to create even the simplest life form naturally suggests, that life did not come from non-life naturally.  If evolution occurred, then it would be evidence of God because so many miracles are needed that scientists can not solve or explain.  

This is just a cursor response to he first point.  There are several other evidences for God, but this is getting long, and my time today is limited.

Data

Joeseph said:

.I'm Atheist.,the burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim , the OP hasn't made a definitive claim he actually says .....there is ".compelling reasons to question the existence of God."

Atheists always say that because they don't have a real argument, so let's do something else atheists hate. Define. Proof is defined as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Truth is defined as a fact or belief. that is accepted as true. Claim is defined as state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. All definitions from Oxford's Dictionary. See what happens when you define? You can't use words like those without thinking for yourself as if that were a good argument when it isn't. I get the impression most people here are young. Perhaps college aged and not particularly bright. You do make a point, though, I just disagree with his reasons as compelling.

Joeseph said:

But he hasn't made the mistake of saying there is no god for certain , there is no burden on him

My argument was against his statement regarding empirical evidence.

Joeseph said:

I cannot say for certain a god doesn't exist but I say the very same thing about Zeus , Posiden , Wotan etc ,etc 

So using your logic I cannot argue against the existence of Zeus right? That's what you're saying.

What I'm saying is more along the lines of if you are going to say something doesn't exist you have to first know what the thing is meant to be and then be able to establish your claim, which is pretty lame if you think about it. It's very difficult to say that something doesn't exist and science can't test the supernatural so you have no argument. Zeus, for example, if you were making the argument that Zeus never existed, I could point out that like the English word God Zeus was used in application to mythological as well as human leaders. Then you would cry that I've only distorted the meaning when it was your poor argument of ignorance on the word God or Zues that tripped you up in the first place. So, when framing your argument, you could prevent me from being able to do that by correctly distinguishing which word you were framing your argument for. You do that by having a good idea of what you are actually talking about. Most uninformed atheists think of the Bible and Christianity as a dumb bunch of nonsense, and they're right in a sense because the Bible has been grossly misrepresented by apostate Christianity. If you knew that you would have a much better argument than something like "The Bible is dumb, religious people have the burden of proof" thinking that was anywhere remotely near clever or a good argument.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Numbers 31 does not mention or suggest "rape" ... try again?

773322

Argument Topic: no (if you want a longer answer just ask me)

@elijah44 A answer to this question may be hidden in the tiny spaces that a electon microscope can observe, human beings on earth are limited to observation by being human beings,  3000 yeas ago humans believed that the earth was flat.