Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[NulliuSINverba]

What is your opinion/theory? Where did everything come from?

I don't pretend to know.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't pretend to know.

I don't either, so what.

 

[Bunyip]

What is your opinion? Where did everything come from?

Why would it need to come from anywhere? The total energy of the universe is zero - you are asking people where no energy came from. Probably nowhere buddy, same place my invisible hat came from.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't either, so what.

Why ask then?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I don't either, so what.

Were you not asserting that specific theories being offered by non-theists were unsubstantiated ... and when asked for specifics, exclaiming "Who cares?"

So far, I'd venture that the word "unsubstantiated" is best aimed at your assertions.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would it need to come from anywhere? The total energy of the universe is zero - you are asking people where no energy came from. Probably nowhere buddy, same place my invisible hat came from.

Ah, right, your invisible hat, now we're talking. Nothing from nowhere, we're on the same page.

 

[icehorse]

Well, first off, I don't. Secondly, that's common, not sure why you're asking me that.

Arguing unfalsifiable claims might be common amongst the religious, but outside of religion it's mostly known to be a big time waster. (I'm asking because the premise of the thread is to engage in arguing an unfalsifiable claim.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Were you not asserting that specific theories being offered by non-theists were unsubstantiated ... and when asked for specifics, exclaiming "Who cares?"

So far, I'd venture that the word "unsubstantiated" is best aimed at your assertions.

So you're disagreeing with Bunyip? How can my claims be unsubstantiated if the total energy of the universe is zero. There is nothing being implied, 0+0=0

 

[Robert.Evans]

Translation: If you don't believe our bologna, it's because you're not open-minded enough.

It is God given, not man given.

Claims of "internalized proof" are not proof. They are more claims.

They are proof, you just don't see it.

I readily accept that theists make unsubstantiated claims. It's not even the least bit controversial. That is what they do.



Only if you promise to not mistake existing just because you've experienced what the rest of us have not.

Meanwhile, let us recall that testimony of X is never a reliable indicator that X exists.

See:

Monster, Loch Ness
Objects, Unidentified Flying
Snowman, Abominable

Your arguments are classical tired atheist arguments and are from ignorance.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Your arguments are classical tired atheist arguments and are from ignorance.

Ignorance of what exactly?

 

[Robert.Evans]

FWIW, I allow an ever-so-slight possibility that there is a deity (and an even smaller chance that such a deity is as described by a man made religion).

So, if Jesus returned tomorrow with bomb-proof evidence, I'd change my mind. Regardless, I'll label arguments based on unfalsifiable claims as "silly". (Lucille agrees )

But you see if he returned tomorrow, he would not need to give evidence as that would be proof. There is a difference between evidence and proof, even though proof can be seen as evidence.
One would suppose that you would think in carnal terms and assume he would be in the body of a man, again! You see the problem. You want everything to be physical. Metaphysical arguments are not revealed that way.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So you're disagreeing with Bunyip? How can my claims be unsubstantiated if the total energy of the universe is zero. There is nothing being implied, 0+0=0

I'm asking you to cite specific "unsubstantiated" theories being advanced by non-theists. That was what you said.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why would you choose to spend your time constructing arguments based on unfalsifiable claims?

What does that even mean?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Where is this "theory of something from nothing" being offered and by who?

...

Aside from the Bible, I mean.

Krauss for one

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Krauss for one

And how is it "unsubstantiated?"

 

[Robert.Evans]

And how is it "unsubstantiated?"

What does that even mean, and why does everyone keep using it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am waiting for a non theist to show that intelligence is not the answer and that somehow luck and magic did it. There seems to be no other option here, except saying it is not God. Why is it not? Why luck? What is the answer if not God? I see no answer, just non theist claiming it is not, with no evidence to back it up nor another argument to give. It is as if they have not even stopped to think about.. I figure it is just therapy myself, a way to make themselves feel good because they feel there is no answer. Yet they always take the argument into the physical, which is completely wrong......

 

[McBell]

How can one create nothing?

Not interested in Pigeon Chess, thank you.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am waiting for a non theist to show that intelligence is not the answer and that somehow luck and magic did it. There seems to be no other option here, except saying it is not God. Why is it not? Why luck? What is the answer if not God? I see no answer, just non theist claiming it is not, with no evidence to back it up nor another argument to give. It is as if they have not even stopped to think about.. I figure it is just therapy myself, a way to make themselves feel good because they feel there is no answer. Yet they always take the argument into the physical, which is completely wrong......

Actually as modern science develops, they have to go more and more into the 'non-physical', which is even worse for 'the everything which is nothing from nothing which couldn't be something because it's nothing yet is differentiated from the other nothing which is everything by apparently something which has to be nothing' theory.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm asking you to cite specific "unsubstantiated" theories being advanced by non-theists. That was what you said.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. Perhaps we should. Do you know anything about teapots? I mean real ones, that's a good topic.
Ok anyways, that was really not changing the subject, the fact that you think it is, is worrisome. The nature of 'nothing' and how it relates to 'something' is very much on topic. I asked him where everything came from, and he said the total energy of the universe is zero. That was his response, that's on topic.