MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

We are arguing against dogma and doctrine. At what point should we question our own sanity for engaging them? 

Well okay boredom is a pretty good reason. LOL

Not really dogma, I would say, but dishonesty coupled with ignorance. These people never apply the same reasoning when it comes to things directly affecting their life. If (and I sincerely hope not) one of these posters gets cancer, what do you think their response will be? Well, I am not sure about Rickey - he is a true nutcase - but none of the other posters will say, "Well, we do not know everything about cancer, so I do not trust those doctors. Instead, I will pray to god!" No, they will go and get a treatment.

That's always a good point. The religious always find renewed trust in the answers science provides when they find themselves needing a doctor. And arguing on the internet with their smart devices.   

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Elohim provided the doctors.

According to your elf book, she provided evolutionary biologists too.

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Your creator is only made possible by the imaginations of people.

Joeseph said:

@Factfinder

It's remarkable how people like this will exercise caution when investing money , negotiating the job market , buying s car etc ,etc yet take any claim that's based on their book of fables as fact , indoctrination makes id-ots of them.

It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work.  That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales.  

@just_sayin
"It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work.  That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales."
What science suggests evolution "doesn't work?" Or are you referring to abiogenesis? Once again, even if it turns out that an advance group of reptilian aliens planted the first cells on Earth, evolution would still be true. Hell, even if it was discovered that your God started life on this planet, evolution would still occur. Please quote a single person on this debate that has claimed that the universe was "created by nothing." Many people have explained to you that science does not claim that the universe was "created from nothing." First off, science does not claim that the universe was "created;" that's your projection of your personal world view. The universe expanded from a singularity. That is how it began, to the best of our current knowledge and evidence gathered. To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith.

OakTownA said:

To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith.

People like this are usually just incredibly ignorant. He has no idea that abiogenesis is not a part of the evolution theory either. People who know the least usually yell the loudest, something Socrates pointed out ~2,500 years ago.

MayCaesar said:

OakTownA said:

To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith.

People like this are usually just incredibly ignorant. He has no idea that abiogenesis is not a part of the evolution theory either. People who know the least usually yell the loudest, something Socrates pointed out ~2,500 years ago.

I agree ignorance has a major role, But I also think in Just_sayin's case he isn't being completely honest, not even to himself. 

@ZeusAres42

And when someone puts up such strawmen in order to ague with themselves they have to be deceiving on the onset I would think. You know, one would have to premeditate arguments that don't exist.

@MayCaesar

I bet you they will not tell their bosses what they tell random debaters here.

Exactly. The reality is no one on this site or any other would know I or you are atheist if we met on the street. Anonymity seems to bring out our true inner passion at times.

@Factfinder ; It is the Spirit who knows you and your identity as a servant of Satan and you will judged for this infidelity.

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It is the Spirit who knows you and your identity as a servant of Satan and you will judged for this infidelity.

I look forward for being exonerated as the force of good that stood against false prophets like you who gleefully admit to abusing 'turds' as you call them in your blind ignorant bigotry.

@Factfinder

He runs when you bring up morality regarding christianity , free will and how his  God cannot have it and as we all know slavery which has him run for the hills.

This is why he keeps banging on about evolution.

@Factfinder

I think you're spot on , he realises there's a certain intellectual satisfaction in being regarded as well read scientifically , unfortunately for him his opinions on science are mostly sketchy.

Recently he said that I believe something came from nothing ( which I never stated) when I asked him " whats nothing " he couldn't answer.

His knowledge of the bible is appalling to say the least.

OakTownA said:

@just_sayin
"It is my observation that when atheists are asked about the obstacles of abiogenesis that they will respond that they still have faith in evolution, even though the science suggests it doesn't work.  That's when I know I'm dealing with people who want to believe in fairy tales. When I ask atheists what created the universe and they respond nothing, I know I am dealing with people who believe in fairy tales."
What science suggests evolution "doesn't work?" Or are you referring to abiogenesis? Once again, even if it turns out that an advance group of reptilian aliens planted the first cells on Earth, evolution would still be true. Hell, even if it was discovered that your God started life on this planet, evolution would still occur. Please quote a single person on this debate that has claimed that the universe was "created by nothing." Many people have explained to you that science does not claim that the universe was "created from nothing." First off, science does not claim that the universe was "created;" that's your projection of your personal world view. The universe expanded from a singularity. That is how it began, to the best of our current knowledge and evidence gathered. To continue to claim that "atheists" ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") claim that the universe was "created from nothing" indicates that you are either not paying attention to arguments presented or you are an interlocutor acting in bad faith.

Let's talk about a universe from nothing first.  I answer this question about once a month.  It is very true that atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have repeatedly spoken about a universe from nothing.  Why Krauss even entitled his book that.  Materially, it is a true description of the initial universe as without time, space, energy, or matter.  It makes sense to call something with zero space nothing.  Krauss uses the term 'nothing' five different ways in his book - he is trying to sell copies, mind you.  What he believes is that a virtual particle created the universe.

Virtual particles are something and nothing at the same time.  They aren't visible in our universe but have an impact on everything.  Here is a primer that might be helpful.  I found it described the theory in easy to understand terms.  I hope this clarifies what atheists mean when they say the universe was created from nothing.

Let me just quickly address why the theory is a fairy tale.
1)  The amount of time that a virtual particle 'exists' is roughly 0. followed by another 43 zeros and then a 1  seconds (I'm flying on memory here, so if it exists less than that fraction of a second I said, I apologize).  Anyway, it theoretically only exists for a fraction of a second.  The more mass/energy it has the less time it can 'exist' in our universe.  A virtual particle large enough to create the universe can only exist an even shorter period of time.  The problem is that the fundamental laws of nature take longer to form than the virtual particle can exist, so it 'pops' in and out of our 'existence' quicker than the fundamental forces can form, which means no inflation, so the universe begins and ends instantaneously and never grows.  Krauss acknowledges this problem, but still clings to the theory.  I guess he believes in miracles, cause the math and science don't work for him.

2) It is infinitely more probable that many other small 'things' would pop into and out of existence, rather than a whole universe.  These 'looped' particles must build up, so it is much more probable that a bicycle or chair, or even unicorn would pop into existence than a whole universe.  But we don't see any of those things popping into existence, do we?  Yet, the law of probability says we should.

3) Krauss admits the infinitesimally small odds of a universe being created from 'looping' virtual particles.  Yet he claims that everything can happen given enough time.  However, his appeal to an eternally existing multiverse outside of the universe is a death knell to his own theory.  If universes pop into existence in this universe creating plane that exists eternally, even if they happen an infinite time apart, each universe would leave a bit of radiation behind.  Since this would happen an infinite number of times, we should 1) be able to identify that radiation, and 2) be dead because the amount of radiation would be infinitely high and not permit any living thing by now.  That's why most cosmologists abandoned the ideas Krauss is putting forward in the 80's.

The problem of abiogenesis has a least 10 miracle sized problems with it.  That's not my opinion, but the opinion of the guys who popularized the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and wrote the book by that name on it.  I believe they are all atheists, but even they admit that at least 10 'miracles' had to happen for life to develop on earth.  In my opinion, if you need 10 miracles, to make it work, then you need a God to make it work.

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You will perish in Hell because you have rejected Jesus our Messiah for the atonement of your sin.

You are insane and pathological Richy.
One: despite John III: XXXVI,  Man is the son of GOD, and you are so non-quaker. 

Jesus only becomes GOD by vote to join the crucifixion team when seeking His help. (Jesus died for our sins) Jesus has been your sacrifice, while place by vote for Jesus as one of many children of GOD is not now nor has ever been the one child of the one GOD. (Not possible)

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You will perish in Hell because you have rejected Jesus our Messiah for the atonement of your sin.

There is at least one prophet that disagreed with the notion blood sacrifices were needed to atone for sins...

Hosea 14:2 “Take word to the LORD and say to Him, Forgive all our sins and receive us with grace, that we may offer the words of our mouth as the sacrifice of bulls.”

There are other verses claiming that the old testament sacrifices were made as a foreshadow of the true sacrifice of Christ that was yet to come but here your bible says it wasn't necessary. Solid evidence your god was made up.

@RickeyHoltsclaw
"Elohim has provided everything you need to know via His written and Living Word in order to find life through Him by faith. You don't see this because you're narcissistic-ally arrogant and selfish and secularized through spiritual compromise...you're spiritually dead and you simply don't care...this is a lethargy that culminates in death of the soul in Hell and again, you're simply too spiritually ignorant and complacent to care...this is why you don't pursue Elohim with your whole heart...you don't care."
And you know this how? I read the Bible cover to cover multiple times seeking god. I prayed multiple times a day for everything from good weather to good health and healing for sick loved ones. I prayed with all of my heart for some sign that god heard me. I got nothing. What "spiritual compromises" did I make? How can one be "spiritually dead" when a spirit does not exist? How else am I "narcissisic-ally (sic) arrogant and selfish?" You know nothing about me or my life, and yet you feel comfortable making such judgments. Doesn't the Bible explicitly discourage judging others in both Testaments?  

OakTownA said:

@just_sayin
Thanks for moving the goalposts once again. We are supposed to be talking whether or not god is real, not the origins of the universe.
As for Krause claiming a "universe from nothing," he does not mean nothing in the common usage (it is impossible for nothing to exist, as by its very existence it becomes something). He means a zero energy state. Here is a short video where he talks about what he means. He also talks about virtual particles, which you also commented on.


Krause is one scientist. He may be right, he may be wrong. I am not a physicist, and, honestly, much of quantum physics goes over my head, so lets go back to the original topic. I see zero evidence a god or gods exists. What evidence can you present that demonstrates the existence of your god? 

Did you read my post?  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179962/#Comment_179962

I did explain to you what he is arguing.  The zero energy state is a condition of his theory - that much is true.  I have not misrepresented him.  But since you brought it up - while near zero - the measurement is not zero, and doesn't appear to be able to get to zero - and his theory needs it to be 0 to work (or so that is his argument - I was gracious and didn't bring it up) - so, thank you for debunking it for me.

Debunking atheists claims of evidence that God is not needed, as Krauss does, fits with the debate topic.  There are at least 2 dozen other failed popular theories on the origin of the universe from atheists. Would you like me to debunk them also?  I don't mind at all.  My favorites are the Return to the Planet of the Apes one (where an atom goes back in time and creates the universe), and Sean Caroll's (think Tenet movie) model where time literally runs backwards.  

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You did not explain Hosea clearly contradicting Leviticus...

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Hosea 14:2 “Take word to the LORD and say to Him, Forgive all our sins and receive us with grace, that we may offer the words of our mouth as the sacrifice of bulls.”

The problems of worshiping an imagined a religious god. 

What contradiction?  Hosea 14:1-2 reads

Return, Israel, to the Lord your God.
    Your sins have been your downfall!
2 Take words with you
    and return to the Lord.
Say to him:
    “Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously,
    that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

Hosea 14:2 is not saying that Leviticus 17:11 is wrong or overwritten.  It is mentioning a prayer of forgiveness - which reflects a repentant heart.  The sin offering that is alluded to in Leviticus 17;11  was not to be done in a perfunctory manner without the person having personally repented.  In fact, what you are suggesting - that the act of the offering was separate from a repentant heart, or 2 independent things, is the subject of famous Bible story - where Saul gets impatient and does the sacrifice, before the prophet can arrive, so he can start the war.  When the prophet arrives, Saul is told, that God wants obedience over sacrifice.  Saul did the sacrifice, but because he was impatient and it was just a perfunctory action to him, he is rebuffed by the prophet.  The sacrifice was part of the process, but the heart condition was a prerequisite.

You really should have known this - having been a Deacon. I've noticed you make a lot of false claims about Bible passages. Was the church you were in, not very concerned about what the Bible actually said and meant?

@just_sayin

There are at least 2 dozen other failed popular theories on the origin of the universe 

And 100's of failed blind faith based assertions 'god did it' with no evidence at all or reason to think evidence of said myths to ever be discovered. That fact speaks volumes to the reality there's likely no god.

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You did not explain Hosea clearly contradicting Leviticus...

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Hosea 14:2 “Take word to the LORD and say to Him, Forgive all our sins and receive us with grace, that we may offer the words of our mouth as the sacrifice of bulls.”

The problems of worshiping an imagined a religious god. 

What contradiction?  Hosea 14:1-2 reads

Return, Israel, to the Lord your God.
    Your sins have been your downfall!
2 Take words with you
    and return to the Lord.
Say to him:
    “Forgive all our sins
and receive us graciously,
    that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

Hosea 14:2 is not saying that Leviticus 17:11 is wrong or overwritten.  It is mentioning a prayer of forgiveness - which reflects a repentant heart.  The sin offering that is alluded to in Leviticus 17;11  was not to be done in a perfunctory manner without the person having personally repented.  In fact, what you are suggesting - that the act of the offering was separate from a repentant heart, or 2 independent things, is the subject of famous Bible story - where Saul gets impatient and does the sacrifice, before the prophet can arrive, so he can start the war.  When the prophet arrives, Saul is told, that God wants obedience over sacrifice.  Saul did the sacrifice, but because he was impatient and it was just a perfunctory action to him, he is rebuffed by the prophet.  The sacrifice was part of the process, but the heart condition was a prerequisite.

You really should have known this - having been a Deacon. I've noticed you make a lot of false claims about Bible passages. Was the church you were in, not very concerned about what the Bible actually said and meant?

Actually they and I understand the bible far better than you. I offered no such thing. Nothing in my post spoke to where the peoples hearts were. Another strawman on your part. I showed where a contradiction is in your bible, period. And you've failed to explain it.

Your 'contradiction' about bull sacrifices is non-existent.  The fact that most translations of Hebrews 14:2 don't even mention bull sacrifices in the passage should tell you that.  The focus is on sacrifice of their lips or hearts, it is not intended to be understood as a physical animal sacrifice, just a sacrifice - and it does not contradict the rest of the Bible.  

"Bull" was the animal mentioned and everyone knows it took blood sacrifices to forgive sin from the very beginning when god killed an animal in the garden. The translations that don't mention a bull in JOSEA 14:2 only points to apparent errancy and does not support your response. The narrative of the new testament makes it abundantly clear that only a blood sacrifice can forgive sin and at the end of the day it could only be that of the messiah. All blood sacrifices foreshadowed what was a necessity. Hebrews and Revelation make that absolutely clear. Yet Hosea says just pray and ask god to let your words from your lips BE THAT SACRIFICE. A contradiction in the supposed infallible word of god.

@OakTownA

Any evidence of a god at all might be nice. 

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Explain the origin of matter, Time, space, physics, the human genome, void design and an omnipotent Designer? When you can explain these these things through "natural" phenomena, the idiocy of atheism will be taken seriously. 

Explain in detail the origin of matter, time, space, physics, the human genome void inserting a creative entity that there is no empirical evidence of the specific entity you cow down to. I'll go first.

These things seemed to have emerged over the course of eons of time naturally as conditions allowed and circumstances developed along the way and as celestial bodies formed.  It is not known exactly how conditions arose to initiate the processes behind it all but all evidence with the parts we do know and understand have natural phenomenon at their roots as answers to some aspects of it unfolds. So because of all the evidence we do have; and none of it leads to any kind of supernatural activity of any sort; my short answer to your question is 'natural phenomenon'. 

Go...