Okay, you just in the lions den and then complain that you don't have claws?

I'm not sure what you don't understand, but quote what I said that doesn't make sense to you and I will do my best to explain. Maybe instead of complaining like a child and then attributing your lack of understanding to me trying to confuse you, you could have asked for clarification? I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing that out for the future. You shouldn't assume those you are debating with are debating unfairly, you should ask questions.

Spider said:



That sounds highly irrational. No law or cosmological model proves the existence of an intelligent designer. That is not a claim based in reality.

If you truly believe that God wants people to believe through FAITH.

Then why do you spend so much time trying to PROVE the existence of God?

That just doesn't make any sense to me.

If you believe that God whats people to have faith, then you should preach to people they they should have faith, and quit trying to prove the existence of God.

You're just not acting in a manner that is conducive to what you claim your stance to be.

Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Argument doesn't argue for an intelligent designer. It argues for a first cause. There are other arguments that carry this further into logically proving God's existence. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with this argument, which is why you are getting it so wrong. The Cosmological Argument doesn't support Christianity any more than it does many other religions.

duude

what lions den??

you asked me if i want to debate you and i said that i would not because i am a teenager who only wished to asks questions about the existence* of god. and hopefully get logical answers and not "because the bible says so".

then you proceeded to go on about Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems wtf

*edit

Let me explain it to you.

If someone doesn't see any reason to Christianity, then that person will never have faith in Christianity. It's pretty simple really. That should have been obvious, I hope you will ask yourself why that answer wasn't obvious to you.

If your mother was the nicest person you have ever known and she was a Christian, why do you try so hard to prevent others from believing in Christianity?

Exactly. Just because someone posed an argument doesn't make it true.

That's just wishful thinking.

Spider, with all due respect, you're just trying to pass of your beliefs onto others as though they are established facts. But they truly aren't.

I mean, come on. Be realistic.

If everyone was a Christian like my mother was then Christianity wouldn't be a problem.

She actually followed the advice of Jesus and didn't go rooting around in the Old Testament passing judgements on other people.

However, it doesn't really matter. My mother wasn't a nice person because she was a Christian anyway. My mother would have been a nice person no matter what religion she had been taught to believe in.

Religion truly had nothing to do with how nice she was. That's just who she was.

Then why are you claiming that it does support the existence of a god? What are these "other" arguments then? Logically supports? Was does that mean exactly? If its not an ID then how do you know its the biblical god that it is supporting as opposed to any other concept of god? It simply supports it enough for you to be happy because it doesnt conclusively disprove the idea of a creator? Pfft

Spider,

Let me also add, that I couldn't care less if you personally want to believe in Christianity.

I have no problems with Christians.

What I have a problem with are the ones who proselytize the religion and try to convert everyone else to believing in the religion. And even go as far as trying to claim that the y can prove that it must be true!

That's a farce to be sure!

I don't claim to fully understand Penrose-Hawking, but I do know what it boils down to. You can read about it yourself, you don't need me to explain it to you.

The theory proves that black holes evaporate and don't explode. Nothing comes out of a black hole except entropic energy, which is energy that can't be used for anything.

Even if it is an ID it still doesn't point to the Biblical myth.

There's nothing the prevents ID in religions like Eastern Mysticism or any other pantheistic or animistic picture of God.

On the contrary, it's much more likely that we are the spiritual essence of this universe.

That makes far more sense than to believe that we are something 'other' than the spiritual essence of this universe.

Spider's arguments do not point to the Biblical myth anyway.

I have never said it did. I have said the opposite many times. I would say you just created a strawman fallacy, but I believe you are honestly confused.

It supports the existence of A UNCAUSED CAUSE. I'm not sure how many times and ways you will want me to say that.

Other arguments support the existence of God. If you can't understand this one, why do you think that you will fair better with the other arguments?

It's not my argument, it's Thomas Aquinas's oh great Biblical scholar. Sorry, I'm not entirely sure you deserve that sarcasm, but it is mind boggling that someone could claim to have studied Christianity 30 or 40 years (the number is always changing, every time you make the claim) and have never heard of Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Argument.

And no, the Cosmological Argument doesn't point to the Biblical God, but it does point to a God. When you guys comprehend the Cosmological Argument, I can get into the others that support Christianity specifically.

yep, as i've said a few times already, i'll do the research myself rather than you explain to me.
your explanation would not be entirely objective.

That's just downright degrading there Spider.

You claim to have proof for something, then you are unable to express it in a way that makes sense, so what do you do? Insult the people you are trying to prove something to?

Why do you do this Spider?

You go around trying to prove the existience of God to people, and when they don't buy your proofs you insult them as being 'beneath you'.

That's just downright wrong.

Is this how you have learned to behave as a Christian?

Is this part of "Spreading the word?"

When does proselytizing cross the line to become nothing more than an over-inflated ego trip?

That's what I want to know.

Opps sorry. That's not the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theory.

The Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem proves that singularities are finite. In other words, every singularity extends only so far into the past. There are versions of the singularity theory that show that the universe originated from one singularity in finite time.

Spider this is the comment I was referring to and why I was confused by what you meant. Can you blame me? You say proves that a god must exist and then when I asked you about it, you back tracked. You are stating right here that Aquinas's Cosmological model proves that a god must exist. Since you are Christian, I automatically assumed you were saying that his model proves that the god of the bible exists. That would appear as if you were really taking some liberties there and that is why I asked you about it alright.

You probably would have fared better not to make this comment because you were taking it further than was realistically possible based on this one scientific premise and I asked you about it.

There is no shame in not understanding something. There are many things that I don't know or understand. You and Krimsa don't understand the Cosmological argument, therefore you wouldn't understand any arguments that depend upon the Cosmological argument.

I never said or implied anyone was "beneath me". You are a pathological liar and I will point it out every time you lie, okay?

Here are some links that might help you.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument

That's not exactly correct.

Black holes do explode when they reach a certain critical size.

Also, the energy that escapes from a black hole can indeed be used.

In fact, it was Penrose himself who showed how to use a black hole as a power generator.

Finally, our theories on black holes are admittedly incompletely. Both Hawking and Penrose would be the first to admit that.

We cannot have a completely theory of Black Holes until we have a theory that melds General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, and we don't yet have this.

Finally, doesn't it seem odd that the same person who is arguing that Evolution is 'just a theory', is trying to use theories about black holes to prove the existence of God?

No one has ever seen a black hole in-person. Yet we've seen the evidence of evolution scattered all though the earth's crust.

So it's really strange to see someone dismiss Evolution as 'just a theory' and then appeal to a theory of Black Holes to prove the existence of God.