To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well done, Pachomius, you avoid addressing any issue raised against what you have previously claimed by choosing to ignore them and instead trying to address an issue discussed at length already over the last 28 or so pages.
Do you ever wonder why people don't bother to respond to you, or take you with the seriousness you undoubtedly feel, through your own inflated ego, that you are deserving?
 
Seattle said:
It is claimed that God can't be validated with the usual scientific methods since God isn't material but is rather a spirit.

However, in Christianity there is the concept of the "resurrection body". It's the body that Jesus had when he came back after 3 days and it's the body that everyone else is supposed to have after they die.

It is a physical body that is modeled after the body they had in life but this body doesn't decay. This has to be more than a spiritual existence then. This is a material body. Where is this material body supposed to be located? In "heaven" of course but now that we are talking about a material body rather than just a disembodied spirit there must be a physical location.

Where is that?
Click to expand...

The Heart. "Home is where the Heart is"
 
Pachomius. Let's be direct. You say that there must be a God because you believe that for there to be a universe something must have caused it and you believe that something is God.

"Cause and effect" is a concept that is of our universe. Once you start talking about something that existed before our universe the concept of cause and effect no longer applies.

Something that came before time isn't a cause of an effect that follows in our universe. In other words, both the cause and the effect have to be in our universe for the observation that we know as "cause and effect" to hold true.

Maybe our universe does come from something else and maybe it doesn't. We don't know, you don't know and we're not going to "figure it out" via "logic".

If it does come from something there is no reason to presume that it came from your particular God or from any God for that matter. There is no reason to presume that it wasn't a material cause rather than a supernatural one.

It also doesn't work to say that the universe or something that came before it couldn't have always existed and then claim that your God did always exist.

Either it's possible for something to always exist or it's not possible. Inserted your God doesn't nothing to simplify or to clarify this question so why do it?

No matter how many more pages you cause this thread to grow to the conclusions won't be any different than what I have just described.
 
I think religious has outlived its usefulness. It had a place at a time when man needed the comfort and explanations that religion provided when man knew very little. Now it makes no sense to have these arguments to try to contort reality to conform to ancient religious beliefs.

It's just mental gymnastics.

Practically speaking however, it is the conservative mindset which is adverse to change that is associated with the negative effects of religion. If someone is progressive and open to change they aren't generally being directed by their God to adversely impact the lives of others.

It's the conservative mindset that is clinging to creationism, a "young" Earth, opposed to stem cell research, offensive to gays, women, etc. Intolerance is generally associated more with conservative beliefs.

I think that an educational system that stressed progressive ideas might be more effective at reducing the effects of religion than a program that just focuses on promoting atheism.
 
Seattle said:
I think religious has outlived its usefulness. It had a place at a time when man needed the comfort and explanations that religion provided when man knew very little. Now it makes no sense to have these arguments to try to contort reality to conform to ancient religious beliefs.

It's just mental gymnastics.

Practically speaking however, it is the conservative mindset which is adverse to change that is associated with the negative effects of religion. If someone is progressive and open to change they aren't generally being directed by their God to adversely impact the lives of others.

It's the conservative mindset that is clinging to creationism, a "young" Earth, opposed to stem cell research, offensive to gays, women, etc. Intolerance is generally associated more with conservative beliefs.

I think that an educational system that stressed progressive ideas might be more effective at reducing the effects of religion than a program that just focuses on promoting atheism.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with you.
Relgion existed because some people couldn't understand the science.
Though we should not interfere with religiousness that helps us in being politically correct.
 
Seattle said:
I think religious has outlived its usefulness. It had a place at a time when man needed the comfort and explanations that religion provided when man knew very little.
Click to expand...
People even now need comfort and direction in life. Religion provides that. I do not need religion, that does not mean that all others too do not need religion.
 
Amar Nath Reu said:
People even now need comfort and direction in life. Religion provides that. I do not need religion, that does not mean that all others too do not need religion.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "I don't need Santa Claus but others may need Santa Claus". A 16 year old may need to suck their thumb but it's appropriate only for a 1 year old.
 
madethesame said:
Yes. I agree with you.
Relgion existed because some people couldn't understand the science.
Though we should not interfere with religiousness that helps us in being politically correct.
Click to expand...


What science didn't they understand?

Amar Nath Reu said:
People even now need comfort and direction in life. Religion provides that. I do not need religion, that does not mean that all others too do not need religion.
Click to expand...


Define religion?

jan.
 
Seattle, you say:

Pachomius. Let's be direct. You say that there must be a God because you believe that for there to be a universe something must have caused it and you believe that something is God.


My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What is your contention, put it in less than 30 words as I did with my contention.

To everyone, I have to abstain from answering to your posts unless you are also into my contention stated above, and you have another contention contrary to mine.

And if your contention is essentially that of Seattle, then I will just deal with Seattle.
 
My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by natural without involving a god.
 
So you believe in evolution I take it? If not forget this.

The problem is no one has ever been around a successful mutation(except micro evolution, which is viruses and some) to give evidence to their hypothesis.
 
davewhite04 said:
So you believe in evolution I take it? If not forget this.

The problem is no one has ever been around a successful mutation(except micro evolution, which is viruses and some) to give evidence to their hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are trying to distinguish between "macro" evolution and "micro" evolution. There is no distinction. This are just terms that apologists have some up with. Small changes (micro) result in large changes.

Regarding mutations. Some a negative, most are neutral and some have positive effects. You have to do the research here as genetic mutations aren't something you are going to see just walking down the street.
 
Seattle said:
Regarding mutations. Some a negative, most are neutral and some have positive effects. You have to do the research here as genetic mutations aren't something you are going to see just walking down the street.
Click to expand...

What mutations are you referring to?
 
There's an anti HIV gene mutation for example. The same has been documented for the Black Plague. Most people were lactose intolerant 50,000 years ago.
 
The real point here (evolution) is that it's a theory (in the scientific sense) that has been around for more than 100 years and has been extensively tested without fail. It's as close to a fact as you can get in science.

With that in mind, why engage in mental gymnastics to try to cast doubt solely for religious reasons? You're only problem with evolution is religious in nature. Otherwise you would find no fault given its thoroughly tested history.
 
Seattle said:
That's like saying "I don't need Santa Claus but others may need Santa Claus". A 16 year old may need to suck their thumb but it's appropriate only for a 1 year old.
Click to expand...
That is what I mean. Something may be good for some, unnecessary for others.
 
Pachomius said:
My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Click to expand...
One doesn't need to "think on logic" for that... one merely needs to hear it stated from someone who believes such: e.g. Jan believes that God exists as the creator and operator of everything, and thus God in concept exists as such. QED.
However this has no bearing on the actuality of God's existence.
If you contend that God is more than a mere concept then while you contend that you know from thinking on facts and logic, there is no sound logic that can take you from what we do actually know to that conclusion, and the veracity of any valid logic can not be demonstrated.
At that stage it is merely your belief.
What is your contention, put it in less than 30 words as I did with my contention.
Click to expand...
Again, don't tell people how to respond to you.
To everyone, I have to abstain from answering to your posts unless you are also into my contention stated above, and you have another contention contrary to mine.
Click to expand...
Yes, avoid every criticism raised thus far of your position, until you come across one that you feel you can answer.
You have baited me for a response several times, and yet when I provide one you can not respond meaningfully, instead just avoid.
You have done the same with JamesR, and no doubt you will do the same when Seattle raises points you have no answer to.

But to play your game...
My contention in 30 words: that you are a charlatan, that you don't understand logic, that there is no sound logic that concludes with "God exists", and that you do not know but instead believe.

Ultimately, Pachomius, in all your posts thus far you have contended much yet said so little.
Are you actually here to have a discussion with people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top