100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 60 Absolutely Infallible Indesputable Proofs That God Exist | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This "you are offending me" chorus that religious people like to repeat over and over is to get people to not question the atrocious nature of their religion because it is uncomfortable to acknowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "you are offending me" chorus that religious people like to repeat over and over is to get people to not question the atrocious nature of their religion because it is uncomfortable to acknowledge. If you were offending me, I wouldn't be replying to you. But you are trying to be offensive with this thread. Why are you so defensive about the obvious intent of your thread? If you are trying to be offensive, then at least be honest about it. Don't play coy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those of you who do not use the illogical arguments highlighted in this thread do not have to be offended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you do, it is within my right to point out, albeit satirically, the glaringly obvious break with logic that is present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those of you who do not use the illogical arguments highlighted in this thread do not have to be offended COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, God exists That is offensive to anyone who values logic or history. Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological is nothing like that, it's simply mangled into a falsehood so that it can be mocked. The Cosmological argument cannot be refuted by logic or science today. There is no proof that anything exists that doesn't need a cause. So something had to cause the universe to exist. It's inescapable logic and instead of trying to refute it, you mutilate it and mock it? 1) Only a complete moron would claim that finite things didn't have a cause. 2) The universe MUST have had a cause. That is unless you want to argue that physics are completely false and then I would say you have more serious issues than worrying about the cause of the universe. 3) True 4) No. Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological argument proves that a god must exist, there are other arguments that push this further to the point of proving that God exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 12/04/08 09:55 PM
|
|
I didnt say that you started this thread. I said that the intended point was to actually depict some of the ridiculous arguments that Christians will often attempt to use (to no avail) in the General Religion forum. if you have a truly honest desire to know the truth, then you shouldn't be attempting to offend those who can help you reach that goal. This was the statement that you made that would clearly indicate that you believe your assertions to be the absolute truth. I am here to inform you that this position you are taking is presumptuous and unfounded. All that you can possibly espouse is your own definition of truth as it applies to spider and no one else. Sure, someone might listen to you and even agree with some of your points from time to time, but for you to sit there and attempt to admonish a person and tell them that "if you truly have an honest desire to know the truth" is simply arrogant and rude. It is the domain of a paper pope and it is not your proper place. What do you mean I need to put my beliefs out there? What do you care about my beliefs? You certainly never had any interest in them before. I have never picked on anyone and have only debated the biblical contradictions and fallacies as is my right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote: Are you actually arguing that there are things which exist, which will end to exist, that weren't caused by anything? I'm not arguing anything. You're the one who laid out a silly line of reasoning claiming to have come to a definite conclusion. You claim that the universe is finite and that God is not. I say that you can't prove either of these claims. Yet your argument requires that they are both true. Your argument also assumes the existence of an absolute concept of time. That's certainly not the time within this unvierse. So your entire argument is based on totally unwarranted premises that you haven't shown any evidence for. I believe that spiritual time is an ever-existing ever-changing primordial 'now'. This is precisely in line with the Eastern Mystics and many other spiritualities as well. The very concept of a 'first cause' in this picture is a meaningless concept because this kind of spiritual time doesn't flow linearly from a past to a future. Moreover, as you well know, I'm a firm believer in our spiritual essence. So you don't need to convince me of the spiritual nature of the existence. I still hold that your arguements are flawed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we aren't the very spirit that changes form. In fact, this is precisely what I believe. We are a direct manifestation of God. We are God. The very idea that some external God exists and has created us as it's pets is ludicous on so many levels. First off, if we aren't God then what exactly would we be? How could we be something other than God? That's absurd. That would imply that we have an existence that is separate from God. But for that to be true, then we'd need to be God's in our own right anyway. Even if we allow for that, then we get into the whole concept of what 'seperates' us from God? If God exists separate from us, then there must be a third 'thing' the exists between us and God to serve as the seperator. The idea of an external egotistical God who get's peeved when people don't worship him is utterly nonsensical. Such a God would be nothing more than an all-powerful spoiled brat who has no parents to teach him good manners. We would be nothing more than hopeless helpless pets totally at his mercy. He could be like Adolph Hitler and we'd have no choice but to worship him simply because he's the big bully on our block. The best we could hope for in that pathetic situtation is to pray to even higher Gods to come and save us from our spoiled brat creator. Cleraly, the picture that we are external pets of an egotistical jealous God just doesn't make any sense on any level. Moreover, even if it could be made to make sense, it would be the worst nightmare we could imagine. Why do you argue for such a pathetic picture of a God? The pantheistic picture of the Eastern Mystics is a much more loving picture of a creator. If you're going to believe in a God why not at least believe in a nice God? Why drag around this male-chuavnist pig who hate heathens and people who won't bow down and worship him? Why are you so obscessed to believe in such a horrid picture of a God? Is it because you've just convined yourself that it's true and your stuck with it whether you like it or not?  If I'm going to choose to believe in a God, I'm at least going to choose a pretty picture of God. I see no reason to insult God by choosing a horrid mythology that claims that God is a jealous egotistical male-chauvinist pig. To choose that picture for God would be an insult to God. Why would I want to insult God by choosing such a sick lame mythology to put my faith in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions.
but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was the statement that you made that would clearly indicate that you believe your assertions to be the absolute truth. I am here to inform you that this position you are taking is presumptuous and unfounded. All that you can possibly espouse is your own definition of truth as it applies to spider and no one else. Sure, someone might listen to you and even agree with some of your points from time to time, but for you to sit there and attempt to admonish a person and tell them that "if you truly have an honest desire to know the truth" is simply arrogant and rude. I'm sorry Krimsa, but I was speaking of all theists, not necessarily myself. I think I'm right, that's true. But I never once said or implied that I could lead the poster to truth. What I did say is that if he is truely agnostic, then he shouldn't be trying to offend theists who could help him in his search for the truth. Its is the domain of a paper pope and it is not your proper place. What do you mean I need to put my beliefs out there? What do you care about my beliefs? You certainly never had any interest in them before. I have never picked on anyone and have only debated the biblical contradictions and fallacies as is my right. So you are afraid to step under the microscope? Seems a bit (okay, a lot) hypocritical. Attacking the beliefs of others, but hiding your own so that you cannot receive the same treatment. At least it's a bit more honest than some. There are posters here whose beliefs change every time they are pushed into a corner. At least you are honest that you aren't here to have your beliefs picked apart, you only want to pick at the beliefs of Christians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions. but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? You can't reject the science that proves that the universe had a cause and then complain that I don't accept macro-evolution. Sorry, but you don't get the high ground. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote: Are you actually arguing that there are things which exist, which will end to exist, that weren't caused by anything? I'm not arguing anything. You're the one who laid out a silly line of reasoning claiming to have come to a definite conclusion. You claim that the universe is finite and that God is not. I say that you can't prove either of these claims. Yet your argument requires that they are both true. Your argument also assumes the existence of an absolute concept of time. That's certainly not the time within this unvierse. So your entire argument is based on totally unwarranted premises that you haven't shown any evidence for. I believe that spiritual time is an ever-existing ever-changing primordial 'now'. This is precisely in line with the Eastern Mystics and many other spiritualities as well. The very concept of a 'first cause' in this picture is a meaningless concept because this kind of spiritual time doesn't flow linearly from a past to a future. Moreover, as you well know, I'm a firm believer in our spiritual essence. So you don't need to convince me of the spiritual nature of the existence. I still hold that your arguements are flawed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we aren't the very spirit that changes form. In fact, this is precisely what I believe. We are a direct manifestation of God. We are God. The very idea that some external God exists and has created us as it's pets is ludicous on so many levels. First off, if we aren't God then what exactly would we be? How could we be something other than God? That's absurd. That would imply that we have an existence that is separate from God. But for that to be true, then we'd need to be God's in our own right anyway. Even if we allow for that, then we get into the whole concept of what 'seperates' us from God? If God exists separate from us, then there must be a third 'thing' the exists between us and God to serve as the seperator. The idea of an external egotistical God who get's peeved when people don't worship him is utterly nonsensical. Such a God would be nothing more than an all-powerful spoiled brat who has no parents to teach him good manners. We would be nothing more than hopeless helpless pets totally at his mercy. He could be like Adolph Hitler and we'd have no choice but to worship him simply because he's the big bully on our block. The best we could hope for in that pathetic situtation is to pray to even higher Gods to come and save us from our spoiled brat creator. Cleraly, the picture that we are external pets of an egotistical jealous God just doesn't make any sense on any level. Moreover, even if it could be made to make sense, it would be the worst nightmare we could imagine. Why do you argue for such a pathetic picture of a God? The pantheistic picture of the Eastern Mystics is a much more loving picture of a creator. If you're going to believe in a God why not at least believe in a nice God? Why drag around this male-chuavnist pig who hate heathens and people who won't bow down and worship him? Why are you so obscessed to believe in such a horrid picture of a God? Is it because you've just convined yourself that it's true and your stuck with it whether you like it or not? If I'm going to choose to believe in a God, I'm at least going to choose a pretty picture of God. I see no reason to insult God by choosing a horrid mythology that claims that God is a jealous egotistical male-chauvinist pig. To choose that picture for God would be an insult to God. Why would I want to insult God by choosing such a sick lame mythology to put my faith in? You never even make an argument. You never quote anything. You take one line someone posted and write a book, ignoring the context of that line and creating a strawman fallacy for you to attack. You somehow think that insulting the Bible is an argument. Or "You are wrong Spider!" is a refutation. Your folly is clear to anyone willing to be truthful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JasmineInglewood
on
Thu 12/04/08 10:01 PM
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions. but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? You can't reject the science that proves that the universe had a cause and then complain that I don't accept macro-evolution. Sorry, but you don't get the high ground. i'm sorry.. did you just answer the question?? i must've missed it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider I dont have any specific beliefs to even throw out there. Okay Im not a Christian. Probably no big mystery there. Im sorry that you suddenly feel this burning need to compartmentalize me into this or that religious category so then you can satiate this desire to lambaste me for whatever spirituality I might hold.
I have never picked apart the Christian beliefs. When I first joined this forum, maybe about two weeks after, you made a big announcement about how you wanted all of the "non-believers to pick apart the bible and show all of the various contradictions that we could find. I did that. I would never attack anyone on a personal level. That is not even permitted on this forum. The bible itself has enough issues and problems without me having to add fuel to the fire. Everything that I point out on these forums is TAKEN directly from the scripture. I dont know what you want me to do about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions. but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? You can't reject the science that proves that the universe had a cause and then complain that I don't accept macro-evolution. Sorry, but you don't get the high ground. i'm sorry.. did you just answer the question?? i must've missed it The Theory of Evolution is a theory. The Law of Conservation of Mass is a law. I support a piece of science that has been verified every time it has been tested. You support a theory that has holes. A theory that has been questioned by atheist scientists because it doesn't fit all of the data. Your theory states that evolution requires millions of years, but repeatedly examples of evolution only taking decades has been found. A law trumps a theory. You are questioning a scientific law which isn't debated or questioned by any rational being. Why don't you start by explaining why you reject a law of science and when you have answered that to my satisfaction, I will address my concerns with the theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions. but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? Spider is a confessed religious fundmentalist. He knows nothing of science. He only studies it superficially and denounces whatever he doesn't want to believe, and twists what he'd like to believe way out of proportion. Clearly his so-called proofs that God must exist are not scientific. If they were scientific then scientists would be confirming the discovery. He's just pulling your leg. It's just proselytizing in its worst guise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Theory of Evolution is a theory. That's true, but the evidence for Evolution is evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is an observed fact of nature, and is accepted by the scientific community as fact. The real truth is that you are just a religious fantatic trying to claim that there is scientific evididence to back up your Mediterranean mythology. But the truth of the matter is that the scientific community doesn't agree with your conclusions. Therefore what you claim as 'science' is not science at all. Clearly. Your just an individual with an opinion and no proof of anything. And we all know that your agenda is to proselytize Christianity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider refuses to accept that his belief in his religion is faith based.
That's all there is to it. I'll never understand why Christians can't accept that their beliefs are faith based. They claim to have faith, but they refuse to accept their own claim. They feel that they must prove their case! And it probably comes down to a personal need to prove it to themselves because underneath it all they know they don't really believe it themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider is a confessed religious fundmentalist. He knows nothing of science. How many different and wrong ways have you described the Anthropic Principle? Four...five? I've lost count. "He knows nothing of science"...wow, that's awfully dramatic. Sounds like something Napoleon Dynamite would say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JasmineInglewood
on
Thu 12/04/08 10:18 PM
|
|
Tell me, why is it that only scientific theory that suits your purposes are accepted by you as valid argument when it corroborates your religious assertions. but when the coin is flipped and there is known consensus among scientists that the life evolved over billions of years then suddenly science holds no water? which one is it? Spider is a confessed religious fundmentalist. He knows nothing of science. He only studies it superficially and denounces whatever he doesn't want to believe, and twists what he'd like to believe way out of proportion. Clearly his so-called proofs that God must exist are not scientific. If they were scientific then scientists would be confirming the discovery. He's just pulling your leg. It's just proselytizing in its worst guise. If he truly was interested in helping me to understand whether or not there is logical argument that proves there is a god, i know that he would have spoken in terms that, knowing that i am a teenager who probably does not study astrophysics, i would understand. I suspect he was deliberately trying to talk over my head. And while not understanding what he was saying, i wouldn't be able to debate him. Not being able to debate him... obviously means that therefore God exists... As i said, i will do research and get back to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider refuses to accept that his belief in his religion is faith based. That's all there is to it. I'll never understand why Christians can't accept that their beliefs are faith based. They claim to have faith, but they refuse to accept their own claim. They feel that they must prove their case! And it probably comes down to a personal need to prove it to themselves because underneath it all they know they don't really believe it themselves. [big]What?[/big] Seriously, you can't just make up a crazy lie and post it. I have said hundreds of times here that God wants us to believe through FAITH. You really are a pathological liar. It's scary. My faith is supported by reason, but it is faith non-the-less. |
|
|
|
|
