Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Michael1981]

There is something you simply do not understand, and I believe it is hindering you from seeing the reality of how far removed I am from the possibility of becoming Christian, or believing in God, or gods, or anything of the sort. Not only is there far too much else in reality-based knowledge that fits with the observable, experienced universe - and therefore the accounts of God creating it as is classically described can be cast aside easily, but EVEN IF GOD EXISTS I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS TACTICS, HIS BASIC SENSE OF MORALITY OR HIS COMPLETE ABSENCE. Meaning that even if He is someday proven to exist, I would never, ever follow Him... let alone worship Him. How could I? When I truly believe (you have no idea how truly) that His leadership as it is described is so debased that it requires huge heaps of self-delusion to push past into even apathy... let alone adoration.

No, I think I understand you. You are squarely in your camp. Something you should get straight here, though, is that I'm not responding to you solely for your sake, but also for others who might read this, so that those looking for the truth might receive some direction. For now it doesn't seem that you're ready, but someday you will be.

I'll explain to you why. Until you understand that you're no better than Hitler or those Jews who ate their own children, you'll always be self-righteous. You'll think that you're better than them, though you've never truly been subject to your dark side. It hasn't happened, by God's grace. But it just hasn't happened yet.

What will happen to you when you're under an enemy siege, starving, lacking water or some other life-threatening situation? What will you do then? Will you steal? Will you kill? Yes, you will, absent God's grace. That is what the sin nature is capable of; we are all the worst of the worst. I'm not saying you'll necessarily suffer those kinds of extremes, but the Lord will show you that you are a depraved sinner, and in desperate, desperate need of His righteousness, which you'll one day receive when you receive the Spirit of God.

As for all of the evil that exists...as I just pointed out, you'll be one to talk when you've been subjected to your own sin nature. That's point one. Point two is this: God is perfectly righteous and perfectly just. His plan is perfect in every way; nothing happens that doesn't need to happen.

Yes, it seems impossibly harsh at times. Truly, it is. Sometimes those undeserving of certain sufferings have to be subjected to them in order for the plan to be executed. Take Jesus Christ Himself, for instance. Truly innocent, and yet He suffered what is probably the worst possible way to die. He has partaken of our sufferings, and is in complete solidarity with us. In fact, He suffers with us when we suffer, and so no one suffers more than He does.

And is He doing this for His own benefit? Not at all. All of this is a gift, and a far more wonderful gift than you can possibly imagine.

People die, yes. People suffer, true. But all the dead will be resurrected, not just to eternal life in terms of quantity but in terms of quality. One of my favorite Scriptures follows, because it's the ultimate counter-argument to "why all the suffering?"

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

You see, I too have read The Bible, and in it I found an account of neglect, poor decision making, violence that I can only describe as being based in some grand stupidity, extremely sparse quality-time spent with a creation supposedly cherished, and, as you accused me of using... circular reasoning abound. In my honest, heartfelt opinion, the only good bits in The Bible are the parables whose messages/lessons are relevant regardless whether or not God exists. Everything else about God or that includes God is unworthy of anyone's time. It is a waste because it claims one thing, and yet says another. All of it. God is loving, yet He murders babies why they and their parents are sleeping. God is infallible and yet recognizes mistakes enough to drown them in a deluge of rain. God is all-knowing and yet seems disappointed when His creations eat from the tree He forbade them eat from. God is "just"... and yet one of His first "commandments" - laws, which even we humans understand should ALWAYS be impartial in order to be fair - is that you MUST worship Him, and Him alone. God, as described in The Bible, is completely reprehensible.

And don't you get it... this is one of the very reasons I can nearly assert that He doesn't exist. The accounts are completely idiotic and contradictory - a mess that is so obviously written by humans, and humans alone. If God is real, I will eat my hat. I actually don't even own a hat... so I will buy one and then eat one. But honestly... I swear to you that I am not being disingenuous when I state this... I know deep, deep down that I will never, ever, EVER find the need to buy a hat.

"Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)

"It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)

 

[Koldo]

Point two is this: God is perfectly righteous and perfectly just. His plan is perfect in every way; nothing happens that doesn't need to happen.

Reminds me of what a person in an abusive relationship would say about their spouse.

But, but, Joe is a good man. He only hits with me a racket because I deserve it. It is for the best.

 

[Michael1981]

I told you how to find out. Do I need to hold your hand through every step? And no, I did not post a video, I told you how to Google search for that video. You are merely angry because you could not properly define "nothing". The sort of "nothing" that you want to exist might be impossible to exist at any rate. You will probably make an unjustified assumption.

You're right; someone else posted the video. I thought it was you, my fault. Yet, apparently you agree with his and the video's definition of nothing.

Look, nothing is nothing. I'm not sure how I can state that more clearly or emphatically. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you.

So you believe the Noah's Ark myth? That was shown to be wrong about 200 years ago. You believe the Adam and Eve myth? That was refuted 150 years ago. You are in over your head with the Big Bang theory. You need to start with easier to understand science.

Yes, I believe in Noah's ark. I don't necessarily believe that two of every species were gathered onto the ship, but two of every species available in that particular region. There may have been other arks; likely there were. Genesis says nothing to discount the possibility. And who are you to say it was disproved? You know, it seems to me that you skeptics are the ones who just love to dogmatically represent facts as though everyone has heretofore agreed upon and validated those facts. It's deliberately dishonest and leads people astray. You will be held accountable for every idle word you speak (Matthew 12:36).

Here is a problem with the Adam and Eve "myth." People think that the Bible states that everyone descended from them, which is ludicrous. It says that nowhere. Just like Noah, the purpose of chronicling Adam and Eve was to tell the stories of the lineage of the sons of God, that lineage that spawned the Hebrew people and eventually Jesus Christ.

There were obviously other people created besides Adam and Eve, otherwise Cain would've had no way to build a city when he was cast away.

And I never said the Big Bang had any credibility whatsoever, because it doesn't. It's worse than fiction.

 

[Michael1981]

Man can do more than speculate. He can observe, attempt to explain his observations, and use those explanations to make accurate predictions about what can and and cannot be found in nature if his explanation is correct, and if they are, to perhaps apply his ideas to improve the human condition.

And using the scientific method, man has achieved miracles.

I won't argue with any of that, but I don't see how any of that applies to the Big Bang Theory, the core of which hardly even qualifies as theoretical.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding argument.

The source of the universe, if it has one, could also be an unconscious entity like a multiverse budding uncounted universes of every possibility from itself, or within itself. If you've already ruled that out and ruled a conscious creator in, you've done so without justification.

I disagree on the non sequitur. If something cannot come from nothing based on our natural laws, then the source of matter must be supernatural, i.e. God. We can argue about Who God is precisely, but that He exists and is the source is an absolutely logical conclusion.

Why would an unconscious entity create anything? Where is the will, the motivation, the purpose? It doesn't make sense. Also, your contention that the entity could be a "multiverse" is just bizarre.

I don't necessarily rule out a multiverse, but God would still have to be the Creator of such a thing.

Then they're not proof if others have to take your word to believe you, are they?

I never said that they should be taken as proof.

What comes from faith based thinking is unjustified belief. I don't call that knowledge.

How can faith be a path to a correct belief if that belief and its polar opposite can each be believed by faith. We know that at least one is wrong.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that faith is self-generated; it's a gift from God that one receives at a particular point in time. It's something more than mentally assenting to something or concluding something based upon logic. I believed in God long before I ever had faith, due to working out logically that something cannot come from nothing. I received faith in God when He led me to His Word at The Path of Truth, the website I link to in my signature. And really, that was just the start of it. Faith grows over time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For now it doesn't seem that you're ready, but someday you will be... Until you understand that you're no better than Hitler or those Jews who ate their own children, you'll always be self-righteous...You'll think that you're better than them, though you've never truly been subject to your dark side. It hasn't happened, by God's grace. But it just hasn't happened yet.

I don't know whether you have any idea what the words of my user-handle mean, and I don't claim this is "evidence" of some truth, but I did choose them for a reason. A "mote" is "a small particle or speck, especially of dust" and "vestigial" refers to that which is a "vestige", or "a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence" This is what I chose to call myself. It is funny to me that you seem to believe that I think myself better than anyone or anything. In my own philosophy, I am of the sincere belief that, objectively, I am no more important than a stone. Do you understand that at all? This is how I choose to live my life... always striving to keep my perspective at the grandest scale possible... to keep an understanding that my own trials and tribulations MEAN NOTHING. And at that grandest scale I am constantly trying to achieve a vantage point from... I have found no "God".

Think what you will of me, or my ideas. Just know that you are incapable of making me change my mind.

 

[Michael1981]

I don't know whether you have any idea what the words of my user-handle mean, and I don't claim this is "evidence" of some truth, but I did choose them for a reason. A "mote" is "a small particle or speck, especially of dust" and "vestigial" refers to that which is a "vestige", or "a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence" This is what I chose to call myself. It is funny to me that you seem to believe that I think myself better than anyone or anything. In my own philosophy, I am of the sincere belief that, objectively, I am no more important than a stone. Do you understand that at all? This is how I choose to live my life... always striving to keep my perspective at the grandest scale possible... to keep an understanding that my own trials and tribulations MEAN NOTHING. And at that grandest scale I am constantly trying to achieve a vantage point from... I have found no "God".

Think what you will of me, or my ideas. Just know that you are incapable of making me change my mind.

I can appreciate that. But speaking of God as you do makes you self-righteous.

There is also a difference between thinking oneself insignificant and realizing that you're capable of eating your own children if conditions are right.

 

[Michael1981]

This is how I choose to live my life... always striving to keep my perspective at the grandest scale possible... to keep an understanding that my own trials and tribulations MEAN NOTHING. And at that grandest scale I am constantly trying to achieve a vantage point from... I have found no "God".

Think what you will of me, or my ideas. Just know that you are incapable of making me change my mind.

I don't look down on you at all, if that's what you're thinking.

But your trials and tribulations mean everything. Whether you realize it or not, it's our trials and tribulations which teach us. We're meant to suffer until we realize that God is in full control and brings suffering for our sins. That's why we need to repent and turn to Him.

Still...we usually need to suffer a great deal before we come to terms with that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can appreciate that. But speaking of God as you do makes you self-righteous.

Does speaking candidly about one's feelings on unicorns make a person "self-righteous?" That's basically what you are telling me when you make the claim above.

And the only reason I feel any need to react to statements about God is because they almost always come with a an appeal to self-righteousness. Just the fact that you believe an almighty being loves you is pure conceit in my eyes. Tack onto that the belief you have that you feel your soul is SO IMPORTANT (whether to yourself or some all powerful being) that it warrants being supported in existence forever. Tack onto that all your statements that clearly indicate that you know better than I do the stuff of a realm that even you, yourself basically admit is mostly unknowable. Tack onto that the belief that God has a divine plan for you, and that just about anything you do while working on "the plan" is completely sanctioned by God. Not to mention telling me (and I am sure plenty of others) over and over and over that I am a "sinner", that you have a "way out" of punishment, and that I am currently failing according to your criteria, and will be punished. Basically... telling me I am wrong in an area you cannot possibly claim absolute knowledge within.

And this is where I find my war camp. This is one of the only reasons I ever "go to bat." When someone calls someone else/me out as something for which they are a prime perpetrator themselves. For example, I once had a roommate who complained they were tired of cleaning up after everyone else in the apartment. Mind you, this complaint wasn't directed at me, necessarily - but was being confided in me, because this person did not have enough bravado to go after the real perpetrators directly. Anyway... I went on to tell this person all the times in which I cleaned up after them. Never once complaining - they didn't even know. I cared enough about them, and about the state of the apartment on my own not to care what needed done. If I saw something needing done, I took care of it... as should we all. The fact that they sometimes forgot this or that didn't bother me in the slightest. And I only ever started keeping track of ANY of it when that person first came to me to make similar complaints. I had a vague sense that they had violated their own "rule" a few times that I could (again vaguely) remember... but their complaints started me paying very close attention... awaiting the time that they would complain again... ignorant of their own trespasses. This isn't meant to be a story about ignoring when people take advantage of you. Instead I mean it to give you a sense of what you are doing when you make claims about God. I obviously wouldn't argue the point if you mostly kept to yourself and didn't try and force yours or your supposed God's view onto my life... but that it exactly what you do... all of you who believe that you are meant to be the "witness" for your God - you believe you push this information out with only the best intentions, and from a place of humility... but even when we (those who want nothing to do with your beliefs) tell you directly that what you have done is anything but humble, that what you are saying is an insult even when you believe it a kindness... well, again... that's when I take to these words - making a note of all those points that don't sit right with me... so that when you come complaining to me about my life and beliefs again, I can take all those points and share with you why you have no place to be complaining at all.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't look down on you at all, if that's what you're thinking.

But your trials and tribulations mean everything. Whether you realize it or not, it's our trials and tribulations which teach us. We're meant to suffer until we realize that God is in full control and brings suffering for our sins. That's why we need to repent and turn to Him.

Still...we usually need to suffer a great deal before we come to terms with that.

Our trials and tribulations matter only to ourselves, or to other human beings who sympathize with us. In the grand scheme... they mean nothing. I believe it would do you a great amount of good to come to that realization.

 

[ArtieE]

Look, nothing is nothing. I'm not sure how I can state that more clearly or emphatically. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you.

But I can help. Michael1981 clearly knows nothing about quantum mechanics and general relativity. Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Reminds me of what a person in an abusive relationship would say about their spouse.

But, but, Joe is a good man. He only hits with me a racket because I deserve it. It is for the best.

The idea of God as the abusive boyfriend has been explored:


GOD: THE ABUSIVE BOYFRIEND
http://conversationalatheist.com/general-essays/god-the-abusive-boyfriend/

Ways the Christian God is like the most extreme version of an abusive (and possibly psychotic) boyfriend:

[1] Needs constant praise.
[2] Makes you feel guilty for just being human.
[3] Has severe jealousy issues.
[4] He lets painful experiences happen to you that he could easily prevent, just to test your devotion to Him.
[5] Claims credit for everything good in your life; claims nothing bad in your life comes from Him.
[6] Threatens you with eternal torture if you ever leave Him.
[7] He is constantly swearing that He loves you and you need Him.

Ways to tell if you are in danger of being taken advantage of in a relationship with this abusive God:

[8] You are highly defensive of Him from even the slightest criticism of His flaws.
[9] You talk to Him every night, and He never responds yet still expects unwavering devotion.

*******

Another take on this subject:

GOD AS ABUSER: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses

Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses

[1] "Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse ... God is described as being justified in punishing humanity.

[2] "Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God.

[3] "Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence.

[4] "Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God.

[5] "Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.

[6] "God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away.

[7] "God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.

[8] "By getting [people] to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.

[9] "[V]ictims are told that it’s their fault when an abuser gets angry ... Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong"

 

[Audie]

You're right; someone else posted the video. I thought it was you, my fault. Yet, apparently you agree with his and the video's definition of nothing.

Look, nothing is nothing. I'm not sure how I can state that more clearly or emphatically. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you.



Yes, I believe in Noah's ark. I don't necessarily believe that two of every species were gathered onto the ship, but two of every species available in that particular region. There may have been other arks; likely there were. Genesis says nothing to discount the possibility. And who are you to say it was disproved? You know, it seems to me that you skeptics are the ones who just love to dogmatically represent facts as though everyone has heretofore agreed upon and validated those facts. It's deliberately dishonest and leads people astray. You will be held accountable for every idle word you speak (Matthew 12:36).

Here is a problem with the Adam and Eve "myth." People think that the Bible states that everyone descended from them, which is ludicrous. It says that nowhere. Just like Noah, the purpose of chronicling Adam and Eve was to tell the stories of the lineage of the sons of God, that lineage that spawned the Hebrew people and eventually Jesus Christ.

There were obviously other people created besides Adam and Eve, otherwise Cain would've had no way to build a city when he was cast away.

And I never said the Big Bang had any credibility whatsoever, because it doesn't. It's worse than fiction.

The world wide flood that many believe in is certainly and very demonstrably
not something that actually occurred.

Dogma is a religion thing, not a science thing.

Lotsa little "arks", a local flood, stories retold and made more heroic and
all, sure.

 

[Audie]

I can appreciate that. But speaking of God as you do makes you self-righteous.

There is also a difference between thinking oneself insignificant and realizing that you're capable of eating your own children if conditions are right.

For, lo, verily theirs is the god of self righteousness

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right; someone else posted the video. I thought it was you, my fault. Yet, apparently you agree with his and the video's definition of nothing.

Look, nothing is nothing. I'm not sure how I can state that more clearly or emphatically. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you.

Now you are complaining about a word that you can't even define. That is hilarious.

Yes, I believe in Noah's ark. I don't necessarily believe that two of every species were gathered onto the ship, but two of every species available in that particular region. There may have been other arks; likely there were. Genesis says nothing to discount the possibility. And who are you to say it was disproved? You know, it seems to me that you skeptics are the ones who just love to dogmatically represent facts as though everyone has heretofore agreed upon and validated those facts. It's deliberately dishonest and leads people astray. You will be held accountable for every idle word you speak (Matthew 12:36).

So you want it to be a local flood? Then you make the story worthless since there was no point in gathering animals since it would kill neither every person on the Earth nor would all animal life. A local flood would not have even killed all of the people on the Earth. And please, your book of myths only scares ignorant believers. I am being much more honest than you have been or can be.

Here is a problem with the Adam and Eve "myth." People think that the Bible states that everyone descended from them, which is ludicrous. It says that nowhere. Just like Noah, the purpose of chronicling Adam and Eve was to tell the stories of the lineage of the sons of God, that lineage that spawned the Hebrew people and eventually Jesus Christ.

There were obviously other people created besides Adam and Eve, otherwise Cain would've had no way to build a city when he was cast away.

So you realize that the story has huge truck sized flaws in it. So at least you accept the fact that humans are the product of evolution, right?

And I never said the Big Bang had any credibility whatsoever, because it doesn't. It's worse than fiction.

Since you have no understanding of the sciences at all why do you say that?

 

[Polymath257]

There were people who were alive at the time of Jesus and were put to death in the Roman Colosseum. Killed by wild Lions and Tigers, and burned at the stake.

Read a bit of Roman history. Find an example of what you are claiming. Until *well* after the generation of Jesus died, you don't see the shows where people got fed to lions.

Why do you suppose Jesus said in Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12.

That you shall be delivered up before kings and into prisons and shall kill you for my name sake.

Propaganda?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe there is anyone there. God is there

Do you not see the logical error there - the double standard? Why should it matter to others what you believe? Why should they believe it, too?

Remember, skeptics are not interested in what others believe, but in what they know and can demonstrate, or at least convincingly argue.

Also keep in mind that claims and arguments based on unshared premises fall flat with your audience. When dealing with skeptics, you might consider recognizing that whatever you say that assumes the existence of a god falls on deaf ears. You need to go back a step and argue why a god should be considered the source of anything. Or learn to phrase your arguments in the conditional mode - "If a god existed, then we should expect ... "

Assuming God is actually omnipotent, then your attempt to comprehend His existence from your finite standpoint is rather arrogant, don't you think?

That's better. You're not claiming that God exists or is omnipotent. You phrased this as a hypothetical. Now, there are no unshared premises.

I would disagree, however, that trying to comprehend God is arrogant. It's what we human beings do - try to understand the reality around us, how it works, and what to expect from it in order to navigate it more successfully.

The beasts do this as well, but we do it using language - symbolic reasoning. My dogs reason pretty well. They interpret certain activities as indicating that they will be fed, or taken out in the car. And they understand many words, all by making proper and useful inductions from prior experience.

They're trying to comprehend a reality that transcends their intelligence, and I don't consider them arrogant for doing so.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding argument. The source of the universe, if it has one, could also be an unconscious entity like a multiverse budding uncounted universes of every possibility from itself, or within itself. If you've already ruled that out and ruled a conscious creator in, you've done so without justification.

I disagree on the non sequitur. If something cannot come from nothing based on our natural laws, then the source of matter must be supernatural, i.e. God. We can argue about Who God is precisely, but that He exists and is the source is an absolutely logical conclusion. Why would an unconscious entity create anything? Where is the will, the motivation, the purpose? It doesn't make sense. Also, your contention that the entity could be a "multiverse" is just bizarre. I don't necessarily rule out a multiverse, but God would still have to be the Creator of such a thing.

You haven't removed the non sequitur. It does not follow that there must a creator god. The multiverse will do as well.

But you did address an element of the argument - the claim of a logical fallacy on your part - which is a good thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've always known that God existed because something can't come from nothing; that has always been my "proof" and it came from no one

Your argument is fallacious.

It basically boils down to there must be a cause for the universe, it must be a god, and it's your god. I called that a non sequitur earlier. That conclusion does not follow from that argument, which may be based in a false premise. How do we know that something cannot come from nothing? The rules that apply within the universe may not apply at the scale of universes.

At other times, you argue that special rules can apply for a god, but apparently not for a universe considered as a whole.

Also, when you want to, you ask us to throw reason aside when contemplating that which is incomprehensible to us, but here, you're rigorously holding to "something can't come from nothing." That's called special pleading - an unjustified double standard and another logical fallacy.

it seems to me that God has simply blinded you

To the skeptic, it appears that the faith based thinker is blinded by a confirmation bias that shows him only what he wants to see.

Spoiler: a slight digression

Yesterday, a faith based thinker posted that for the critical thinker (reason and evidence based), seeing is believing, but that for her, believing is seeing.

I think she offered that as advice, or words of wisdom - that she had found a better way of processing reality

I didn't think that she was on to anything valuable, just describing the difference between how people like me and people like her acquire beliefs and utilize reason and evidence. Yes, bee before believing. Let what you see (all of the relevant evidence) direct you to a belief by applying reason to that evidence. That is a time-tested method for determining the truth.

She believes first, then sees, that is assumes an unsupported idea is true, then subverts her reasoning faculty to the task of sifting through the evidence second to find what she think she can use to prop us her faith based belief while ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence.

I believe that you're of this second camp. You frequently ask others to believe first, then the evidence will be revealed to them. These are your words: "You'll be given proof once you believe. It may not be the kind of proof you now desire, but you'll accept it as proof."

That's not appealing.I don't want to engage in that kind of thinking. My reasoning faculty is what grounds me to reality. I use no other method to decide what is true.

Again, we have to take dating processes into account here, and they are flawed processes based on assumptions.

Are you familiar with Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I remind you once again that when dealing with skeptics, mere assertions are treated as your personal opinion, and as I told you, they don't care what you believe, but what you know and can demonstrate. You haven't tried at all to support your claim that radiometric dating is unreliable. We know its limitations, but when done properly, the results are meaningful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God CAN and DID create something from nothing, so is the fact that He violated the first law of thermodynamics also a lie? Why can't you accept that God performs the miraculous?

Because of an unshared premise. You're assuming the existence of a god. The furthest a skeptic can go with you is that such a thing might exist, not that it does.

You're demanding something that God has specifically said you're not to ask for.

The skeptic regards comments like those as something that a person claiming that a nonexistent god does exist would be apt to say.

In a godless universe in which there was belief in such a god, the absence of any manifestation of this god has to be explained. An obvious way is to claim that this god lives in a supernatural realm beyond our reach, fails to manifest itself for reasons known only to it, prefers to be belied in by faith, if He wanted you to have evidence you would have it, that those questioning the attributes this god is said to possess is wandering into areas that he cannot understand, that one is not to ask for signs, that doubt is a weakness, reason untrustworthy, and faith a virtue, etc..

Your problem is you have absolutely no concept of Who God is or what He is doing.

Nobody has any knowledge about gods. Some may claim to, but given the limits of knowledge in this area - what is knowable and what is not - we reject those claims. As has been said a few times already, what you belief is of interest to you, but not to skeptics, who are only interested in what you know and can demonstrate to them.

Without that, why would others believe you that you have knowledge of a god? Insisting that you do is not persuasive.

I sort of get what you're saying, but at the same time you're still saying that God must be subject to something, when all is in subjection to Him.

There's another unsupported opinion based on an unshared premise.

My argument was that in order for a god to exist, it must be subject to things that it did not create, such as the time that it exists, thinks, and acts in, or the consciousness that it possesses, or the laws that keep it structurally intact including its ability to know and act rather than just dissipate like a cloud.

You didn't address any of that, just simply contradicted the conclusion with an unsupported religious belief, My answer to you is the same. The argument stands unchanged. You gave me no reason to change it.

FYI, that is considered bad faith disputation. You are expected to address the elements of an argument offered in rebuttal and explain why you think that they don't support the conclusion. If you want to challenge a factual claim, or identify a logical fallacy, you should do so. Simply contradicting the conclusion without doing that has no persuasive power, and repeating the claim that the argument rebutted is pointless and diminishes ones ethos - how he is perceived separate from his argument (is he competent? Is he honest? Does he seem to be of good character? Does he seem to have an unstated agenda?

It's also seen as a tacit concession, just as it would be in a court of law. A defense attorny says his client is innocent. A prosecutor assemble evidence and makes a plausible if not compelling case of guilt. A good defense attorney addresses that evidence and the chain of reasoning that leads to a presumption of guilt, and if he can demonstrate why that conclusion is faulty, the defendant might walk.

But what happens when the defense attorney ignores the argument, and simply repeats that his client is innocent? How will that be interpreted by the jury? How will the trial turn out?

You are subject to those same standards here as are we all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, you're trying to comprehend something beyond your comprehension. Maybe time has only existed after God's first thought or action. Maybe there simply was no before. Who can understand these things?

I gave you the argument against that. Time must already exist for there to be a thought. Thinking requires passing from a prior moment through a string of consecutive moment in order to transform from a prior state to a later one. If you'd like to rebut that, please do.

Why a group of gnomes if everything must have a source? Eventually we should end up at a single father gnome, the source of the other gnomes. There is no logical reason to assume that the source would be a group. Now, if you wanted to say that there was a single father gnome from whence all else came, well, then I’d be on board.

A group of gnomes was another poster's substitute for God in your argument. If the plurality is a stumbling block, restate the argument with one gnome.The point is for you to see that your argument parallels the gnome argument. If you can see how you feel about that, then you can understand why changing from gnomes to gods doesn't make the argument any better.

I'm not responding to you solely for your sake, but also for others who might read this, so that those looking for the truth might receive some direction

What can you tell a person who is happy and feels fulfilled?

Man can do more than speculate. He can observe, attempt to explain his observations, and use those explanations to make accurate predictions about what can and and cannot be found in nature if his explanation is correct, and if they are, to perhaps apply his ideas to improve the human condition. And using the scientific method, man has achieved miracles..

I don't see how any of that applies to the Big Bang Theory, the core of which hardly even qualifies as theoretical.

Yes, the Big Bang theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and one in good standing. It was arrived at by observing and using those observation to develop a narrative that accounts for present observations and has made predictions of unexpected phenomena that were later found.

If you're going to argue science, you should be well-versed in it. Remember ethos - how you are perceived by your audience.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that faith is self-generated; it's a gift from God that one receives at a particular point in time. It's something more than mentally assenting to something or concluding something based upon logic.

And I see faith as the will to believe insufficiently supported ideas.

That's not a gift. It's an error in reasoning. It bypasses reason, not transcends it.

How can faith be a path to truth when you could have just as easily believed something that contradicts what you presently believe by the same method? By that method, thousands of religions, tens of thousands of denominations, and millions of gods have been generated, all equally well or poorly supported as the next.

Applying reason to evidence generated just one periodic table of the elements.

 

[Baroodi]

So you don't have anything that is reliable. I can find videos that tell you the Earth is Flat. Archaeology has peer review just as other sciences have. If you can't find a peer reviewed article then you are more than likely just selling "woo".

And if you are unfamiliar with woo, think of "Woo, woooooo!, A ghost!"

what do you want more than an evidence scientifically proved, check it in the museum in Cairo with your own eyes. don't hide your head in the sands like an ostrich