dislike atheism

[Subduction Zone]

logic

Ummm... no.

 

[Polymath257]

i will give you the definition of god. god is an eternal, unchange, logical being that cause nature to exist. nature is ephemeral, it changes, and it's laws are god-sent.

OK, now prove that a God exists. Why do you think an eternal, logical being exists that caused nature?

 

[syo]

Not much of a definition. One that appears to be copied from the failed arguments of WLC. What do you mean by "logical"? What makes you think that a god "sent" the laws of nature?

because nature was created. it obeys the laws of the maker.

 

[Polymath257]

so you are the only intelligence in the universe? are you kidding?

That is nowhere close to what I said. I said that we are not created by an intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are joking right?

No, it demonstrates the folly of your earlier claim.

 

[Polymath257]

because nature was created. it obeys the laws of the maker.

Can you prove this?

 

[Jesster]

logic

Go on...

 

[ajay0]

atheists deny a creator god but they don't deny their own being. why and how do we exist then, if not for a creating power? so atheists believe that only themselves exist, and the creation power is imaginary. atheism is totally wrong. they deny the creator god, and they think that only their own temporary being exists. how atheism has followers is strange.

The Jain religion denies a creator God , but holds as special various creator entities ( enlightened Tirthankaras). Buddhism is agnostic and silent about God, and the Sankhyan philosophy in Hinduism too does not give prominence to God and is considered by some to be atheistic.


All three however highlights the importance of meditative Awareness or Mindfulness.

So this shows that religion and spirituality does not need to go necessarily the theistic route.

 

[syo]

OK, now prove that a God exists. Why do you think an eternal, logical being exists that caused nature?

because it's the only thing that makes sense. it's that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

because nature was created. it obeys the laws of the maker.

What evidence do you have that nature was created? And you have yet to supply any evidence of a maker.

You need to quit assuming that a god exists in your arguments to support the existence of a god. You are using circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

because it's the only thing that makes sense. it's that simple.

Nope, that is a classic argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore god".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i will give you the definition of god. god is an eternal, unchange, logical being that cause nature to exist. nature is ephemeral, it changes, and it's laws are god-sent.

Thats not what a god is. For example, I am 5'1, an artist, wih a dazzling smile. What is my overall nature: human being.

For example, god is eternal, unchanging, and creater. What is his overall nature: ?????

Is he a spirit? Whats a spirit?

Is he an animal?

Things like that.

What is a god (not about him. Not his role. His nature)?

 

[Polymath257]

because it's the only thing that makes sense. it's that simple.

I don't think it makes sense at all. So, go beyond your initial response and actually think through the logic. WHY do you believe this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you are the only intelligence in the universe? are you kidding?

No one even implied that. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

we can't suggest that our short lifespan is all there is.

Why can't we suggest this? Too scary or something?

there must be something greater than us that lasts forever.

I am assuming here that you mean some part of us... like a "soul". Why "must" there be this? What evidence do you see in any of the entire universe to support this? And no... writing in books that reference other things for which there is no supporting evidence present in the universe do not count.

 

[syo]

Is he a spirit? Whats a spirit?

Is he an animal? Things like that.

What is a god (not a out him. Not his role. His nature)?

he is ethereal. his essence is not of that of mortal men.

 

[Jesster]

he is ethereal. his essence is not of that of mortal men.

How do you know that?

 

[syo]

Nope, that is a classic argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore god".

i strongly disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

he is ethereal. his essense is not of that of mortal men.

Back to unsupported claims. Did you not understand the example of a teapot between Earth and Mars? That is an object that is not supported by any evidence. It cannot be refuted either. That does not mean that one believes in it. You appear to base your arguments on William Lane Craig. Perhaps you should look into the many times that he has been refuted.

 

[syo]

How do you know that?

his essence doesn't die, that is why.