Lies Atheists Tell

Status
Not open for further replies.
scorpius said:
Draygombs paradox

Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.


there was NO beggining,..Universe always existed..NO creator needed,


logic just doesnt exist in your part of the world,huh?

using bible to prove god doesnt work

circular reasoning fallacy: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove.
(e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

and using the bibles definition of God DISPROVES his existence nicely
read it and weep

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

you can shout until youre blue in the face and stomp your feet in anger but logic and reason will always destroy a fallacious argument...

and YOU've lost ...get used to it!
Click to expand...

Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"

Answer: Does God exist? I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around.

However, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved. The Bible even says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. "Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'” (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is not evidence of God’s existence. The Bible declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset – all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” There is something deep down in our beings that recognizes that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and through us is still there. Despite all of this, the Bible warns us that some will still deny God’s existence, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1). Since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the Biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument basically uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being - but that would contradict God's very definition. A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

Allow me one last argument for God’s existence. How do I know God exists? I know God exists because I speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking back to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no other possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but to acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments in and of themselves can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly clear. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
As long as we're posting others' ideas. Here's one I agree with.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: You are fully and unambiguously deluded.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between a silly attack and a reasoned argument? Apparently not. Let me see if I can help out. When you make an assertion, you buttress it with evidence. Since you continually fail to do this, one can presume it is because you have nothing to offer. No worries, you are no different than most atheist believers.
 
Ophiolite said:
What a fascinating concept. The tsunami that devastated parts of Indonesia , Thailand, Sri Lanka and India, which arose out of plate tectonic movement, was somehow the result of energy provided by the Flood. So Noah's Flood generated another flood some five thousand years later.:shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't recall stating anything about Noah's flood causing future Tsunami's....
 
spidergoat said:
1. The Bible is the collected mythology of ancient Jews, and as such is not a reliable source of scientific information.

2. No amount of flooding can account for the movement of tectonic plates. This is driven by the great heat generated in the core of the Earth, which causes convection currents in molten rock.

Your notions of history are quaint, but out of date by several hundred years.
Click to expand...

Stating that the bible is a collection of works of ancient Jews, does not lead to the conclusion that it is either a "mythology" or an unreliable source of scientific information. Those things must be proven and you have failed, as usual, to do this.

The same is true regarding the flood and plate tectonic's. I don't think you have any idea as the power of a world wide cataclysmic flood. A flood is one of the most powerful forces on earth.
 
The flood of Noah is clearly a myth, it never happened. It would have left some signs, but it didn't. Beyond that, the flood is over yet plate movement continues.
 
spidergoat said:
The flood of Noah is clearly a myth, it never happened. It would have left some signs, but it didn't. Beyond that, the flood is over yet plate movement continues.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't everyone else who owned a boat have survived the flood anyway?
Just a thought.
 
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God
Click to expand...
not only is this statement internally inconsistent (how does one deny something that is undeniable?), but it is also has no bearing on any argument. it seems to be an attempt at a circular logic fallacy. it is also an implied "begging the question" fallacy. that's a lot of things wrong with such a short statement. I consider that evidence of the arguer's lack of knowledge and credibility.

I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around.
Click to expand...
hmm, appeal to popularity fallacy and a burden of proof fallacy... more evidence against the arguers credibility.

People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God
Click to expand...
nice ad hominem and argument from omniscience fallacies :)

I could pick that post apart more, but I think that the above evidence is enough to conclude that the arguer needs to fix the argument(s) before they should be considered.
 
spidergoat said:
The flood of Noah is clearly a myth, it never happened. It would have left some signs, but it didn't. Beyond that, the flood is over yet plate movement continues.
Click to expand...

Let's see, bands of sedimentary rock all over the world (sedimentary rock is formed by water, sediment and pressure). Marine fossils at the tops of mountains and all over the continent. Polystrate trees, mass grave yards, fossil raindrops, world wide cultural evidence of a noahic flood etc. etc. etc. Clearly, you're a clueless wonder.
 
spiderquote said:
...rivers bring sediment from the continents to the bottom of the oceans, where they form layers. If there was one worldwide flood, there would be one layer of sediment evenly spread around the planet. Even though it might have formed distinct bands as it settled out, these characteristics would be about the same wherever we found this layer. There is no evidence for such a layer.

Instead, we find many different kinds of sediment, depending on where it eroded from. ...

Also, a worldwide flood would have floated off the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. They could not have reformed in such a short time. The evidence is in the seasonal layers of ice and bubbles which go back more than 160,000 years.
Click to expand...
...
 
Last edited:
"rivers bring sediment from the continents to the bottom of the oceans, where they form layers. If there was one worldwide flood, there would be one layer of sediment evenly spread around the planet. Even though it might have formed distinct bands as it settled out, these characteristics would be about the same wherever we found this layer. There is no evidence for such a layer. "

Your cut and paste web site is incorrect. Layers would not necessarily be uniform in a world wide cataclysmic flood involving turbulance, volcanic activity and followed by erosion, uplift and glacial activity. Every where you travel there is evidence of a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend across continents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe. The only reason for rejecting a world wide flood is the mistaken belief that the world is very old and the stupid theory of uniformatarian geology.


"Instead, we find many different kinds of sediment, depending on where it eroded from. Some places accumulate chalk."

Coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but highly episodic. Under the right conditions significant increases in the concentrations of these marine microorganisms can occur and conditions brought about by the flood could have been ideal for their formation

"The layers in the grand canyon are not uniform, as if formed from the same stuff, there are sometimes gaps of millions of years in successive layers. This is because another layer did form, was eroded away over millions of years, and another formed on top of that."

The belief that millions of years of gaps occur is nothing more than the presumption of evolutionary time scales. The Grand Canyon is an excellent case in point for a catastrophic flood much like the smaller canyon formed recently and under scientific observation at Mt. St. Helens is. Another evidence of the flood in the GC are the huge folds in the Tapeats Sandstone which must have been formed while the sediment was still soft as their are no cracks visible.
When evolutionists look at this contact point between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale they posit millions of year of missing rock formation. But the contact point is "knife edged" and a straight line. there is no evidence of the kind of erosion which would have occured over this enormous period of time.

"Also, a worldwide flood would have floated off the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. They could not have reformed in such a short time. The evidence is in the seasonal layers of ice and bubbles which go back more than 160,000 years."

this assumes there were ice caps prior to the flood. Planes which have been downed in the polar regions have later been buried under layers of ice in a relatively short time.

"Uniformitarian scientists derive many more ‘annual layers’ in the Greenland ice cores than creationists because of their assumed old age time scale. The differences between the two paradigms also show up in the interpretation of the Ice Age portion of the cores. Large changes in oxygen isotope ratio are interpreted by uniformitarian scientists as wild fluctuations in temperature in the North Atlantic region. Such wild fluctuations in the previous ‘interglacial’ sparked a reinforcement syndrome and other such fluctuations were then ‘discovered’ in other data sets, such as deep-sea cores. These ‘interglacial’ fluctuations have been used to justify speculation on rapid climate change in the present climate due to increased greenhouse gasses. The ‘interglacial’ ice core fluctuations are now seen by most scientists as an artifact of ice flow. Uniformitarian scientists are still perplexed over the huge Ice Age fluctuations. Creationists, on the other hand, can interpret the oxygen isotope swings in at least four ways by events within a short post-Flood Ice Age. The oxygen isotope fluctuations could represent seasonal changes, longer period climate changes caused by variable volcanic dust loading, changes in sea ice, or atmospheric circulation changes." TJ 16(1):45–47
April 2002
 
Craters come from falling meteorites, canyons take millions of years to form as well as layers of coal. Besides, radiocarbon dating reveals that the Earth is indeed several billion years old.
 
Akhenaten made it the state religion, but it was around long before that.

"The Aten, the sun-disk, first appears in texts dating to the 12th dynasty, in The Story of Sinuhe, where the deceased king is described as rising as god to the heavens and uniting with the sun-disk, the divine body merging with its maker."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten

And prominant enough that his father Amunhotep III name his barge after Aten. Also the Moses story is clearly two seperate tales, the baby Moses and the Exodus Moses with the exodus happening "80" years later.

Any way here is a fair write up of the analysis:
http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/moses.html


Aten.gif


Great Hymn to the Aten

How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole god, like whom there is no other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire,
Whilst thou wert alone: All men, cattle, and wild beasts,
Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
And what is on high, flying with its wings.
The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,
Thou settest every man in his place,
Thou suppliest their necessities:
Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.
Their tongues are separate in speech,
And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished,
As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples.
Thou makest a Nile in the underworld,
Thou bringest forth as thou desirest
To maintain the people (of Egypt)
According as thou madest them for thyself,
The lord of all of them, wearying (himself) with them,
The lord of every land, rising for them,
The Aton of the day, great of majesty.

336px-Aten_worship_-_Great_Hymn_to_Aten.jpg
 
Last edited:
Aten was around like all the gods of the Egyptian pantheon, but he was one of many. It was Akhenaten that formulated the monotheistic cult and, indeed, the hymn above is of Akhenaten's time.

There was no monotheism before Akhenaten. Once Akhenaten died, monotheism disappeared for the rest of Dynastic Egypt.

The timing for he and the story of Moses is way off. That's not to say they aren't still related. There just isn't any direct and obvious connection.
 
Theists imagine there is/are gods, atheists imagine they "don't know" or have to imagine there isn't.

If you imagined neither, what would, or could you possibly know about "gods"?
 
Dan.. I'm not replying to your shit to get ignored. If you don't wish to reply to my posts please just say so.

Post 152:
Enmos said:
And so ? :confused:


So.. what if I'm not convinced, then what. Or is this the part where you say "Or else..." ?


So what is it then ? Rational ?
What about well-known bible stories such as Noah's Ark ? Is it to be taken literally ? And if not, how did you determine that ?


Guess what.. it seems to me that YOU are foolishly believing that Christians are the guardians of rationality and science.
Way to go for attacking people for their person views though, regardless of whether or it's true.


Or so says you. Shred of evidence ? I guess not.. :rolleyes:


See above.
Click to expand...
 
MyNameIsDan,
your last lengthy post on sedimentation reveals a distinct lack of knowledge on the processes of sedimentation.

Sediments have a variety of characteristics. These include, but are not limited to, grain size, shape, angularity, degree of sorting, cementation (type and extent), matrix comosition, grain composition, bedding sufaces (internal and external), structures, grading, etc. Further, sediments are formed by a variety of processes of which erosion, transport and deposition; precipitation from solution; and generation by life forms are the major ones. In addition the relationships of each sedimentary body to adjacent bodies, both vertically and horizontally, and whether sharp or gradational, are important.

We can study today, in a vast range of sedimentary environments, all of these characteristics. Thousands of geologists have conducted, tens of thousands of such studies, involving millions of hours of research time. They have established beyond any form of reasonable of doubt a very clear identity between the suite of characteristics I have outlined and the environment of deposition.

This excellent match has enabled us to look at ancient sediments and identify how they were deposited. We find the same grouping of characteristics and - wonder of wonders - the same inter-relationships between adjacent sedimentary types. The global flood concept is unable to explain a fraction of the detailed rock properties and inter-relationships that have been observed, studied and recorded. Any attempt to do so 'succeeds' only by ignoring the enormous volume of quality data available.

You are free to continue your self deception. Please don't waste any more bandwidth seeking to spread your nonsense here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top