Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

[


You misunderstand the purpose of science. In fact, taking as given that something exists (e.g. an origin) before actually gathering evidence for it is generally considered to be bad science.

Really? Because I believe this is done all over science. I hate to use this as an example but isn’t this what is being done in evolution? According to evolutionists, The missing links already exist even though we have no proof.

Nothing? How about an eternal gopher?

There you go: you have something else that is, by definition, eternal. After all, if an eternal gopher weren't eternal, it wouldn't be an eternal gopher, would it? Now... why is God a better explanation than an eternal gopher?

Never mind that we have no idea how a gopher could be eternal, since we have no idea how a god could be eternal either.

At least do a good one next time. And this time find something closer to eternal.

In that case, use your common sense and rationale to tell me how these three statements can all be true at the same time:

- God said he'd destroy every living thing that he created.
- God didn't lie.
- God didn't destroy every living thing.

I can see only one way for all three of these statements to be simultaneously true: that's if "every living thing that God created" is not the same as "every living thing". This means that we have two possibilities:

- at least one of the statements above is incorrect.
- there are (or were) living things that God did not create.

So... which is it?

Simple.
Does God say He will destroy all on the earth or all in the land? Land
Of course God didn’t lie.
God didn’t destroy all the things outside of the region He designated for destruction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? Because I believe this is done all over science.

Well, you're wrong. I'm sorry if I'm becoming less than polite, but I'm getting sick of your mischaraterizations of things you don't understand.

At least do a good one next time. And this time find something closer to eternal.

How can you reject the eternal nature of an eternal gopher? Its eternal nature is right in its definition.

Simple.
Does God say He will destroy all on the earth or all in the land? Land
Of course God didn’t lie.
God didn’t destroy all the things outside of the region He designated for destruction.

Okay... so God didn't "destroy every living thing that he created", despite saying that he would do so. As I said, at least one of the statements was incorrect.

 

[AK4]

Au contraire: CC050: Hominid transition

Double Au contraire:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms

If you think that shows the failure of evolution, then you don't understand evolution.

Lions and tigers are two different species. If you mate a lion and a lion, you'll get another lion that's generally similar to, but still slightly different from, its parents. Do this enough times and those slight differences will add up to the point where what you get isn't a lion any more.

Think about what you just said here and then read below

Have a look at the Wiki article on ring species to see the same phenomenon stretched out over distance instead of time: Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct quote from that page:

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Double Au contraire:

Evolution - Conservapedia

CC200: Transitional fossils

Think about what you just said here and then read below


Direct quote from that page:

And? I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Add up enough little variations and a lion will no longer be a lion. Add up enough little variations and a herring gull will no longer be a herring gull.

 

[McBell]

What you havent been paying attention? They have said it and sometimes if they p***yfoot around it [A self existing, self producing, eternal universe] i just expose what they are trying to hide in long explanations and big words into what they really mean.

You can do this if you pay attention to all the words. Its no different when you have to debunk all the christianity garbage out there.

So you are going to do nothing than attack your strawman, right?

Creation--anything that does have a beginning.

:biglaugh:
ROTFLMAO
LOL
:biglaugh:

If something has a beginning, then something ELSE mustve brought it into existence.

Prove it.

But the alternative to this is having some sort of evidence that something can either come from nothing or produce/create itself.

So who or what created God?

Outside of it means its not part of the creation. Meaning it didnt come into existence with the creation, it created the creation [even if the creation comes from or out of that something]

:biglaugh:
ROTFLMAO
LOL
:biglaugh:

 

[McBell]

Lol. I will now do what theologians and thier puppets do....Call on the god of

context context context.


Its all in the context when you read a consistent translation. Just try it. Read the context of the whole account and replace earth with land and see what you get. Then try it the other way, make it all say earth. Then read it the way alot of translations have with them mixed together and see which one makes more sense.

Nice try.
But you will have to do your own homework.
Especially since going by the 20/20 rule (from 20 verses before to 20 verses after) I find nothing to support your "context" argument.
And before you whine about translation, I use:

(ASV)
(BBE)
(Bishops)
(CEV)
(Darby)
(DRB)
(ESV)
(Geneva)
(GNB)
(GW)
(KJV)
(KJV+)
(KJV-1611)
(MKJV)
(RV)
(Webster
(YLT)

​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

before you whine about translation, I use:

(ASV)
(BBE)
(Bishops)
(CEV)
(Darby)
(DRB)
(ESV)
(Geneva)
(GNB)
(GW)
(KJV)
(KJV+)
(KJV-1611)
(MKJV)
(RV)
(Webster
(YLT)

​

Man that's a lot of reading. Do you also have a bible popup book?...bet you don't have one of those....

 

[godnotgod]

See you people say ex nihilo but scriptures say from God. So thats not something from nothing, its something from God....

In both cases, we have something emerging from nothing, which violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy. If you are saying that these laws are overridden by God, then we are talking another ball game; we are talking magic. God, in either case, is a magician, producing something from nothing.

The problem inherent in your model is, though you predefine God as having always existed, is that the only source for such a God is from your own mind. 'God' is an arbitrarily created entity of mind, which, itself, is self-created! Now THAT is compelling!

This fails because it is known that if the universe could be flipped on or off, it could not stay in the state of being off.

Well, that is exactly what a universe that manifests itself, rather than one that was created, does. When it reaches a certain point in the 'off' phase, it transforms itself back into the 'on' phase. This would be equivalent to what we call the Big Bang (or 'Grande Bungatorre', in some circles). It is not a beginning, but just a continuation of the endless 'on/off' cycling of the universe.

 

[godnotgod]

I dont assume, i am going with science and philosophy or logic and rationale and of course scripture.

Oh, come now! You are just using philosophy, logic, and reason to lend authenticity and authority to this idea that God is, basically, a magician whose magic is, ultimately, a totally inexplicable mystery, but one whom you continually try to explain via of the intellect. If only you knew better, you would NEVER do such a thing, as a God that can be explained is a dead God.

"Yes...heh...heh...I AM GOD...and yes...I created the Universe...heh...heh...and I created it out of sheer nothingness...heh....heh...and I will now explain exactly how I did it. You see, first you take a whole lotta nuttin, honey, and den, well, and den youze add some...uh...stuff...heh...heh..'an den, well, 'an den youze whisper some sweet nothing's in the Devil's ear...toss in some frog legs, bat wings, incomprehensible mumbo jumobo,...and den...BIGGA-BANGA!...'ya got a universe, dude!...Believe it, ...or else!

Creation--anything that does have a beginning. If something has a beginning, then something ELSE mustve brought it into existence.

Yeah! Who dat?

But the alternative to this is having some sort of evidence that something can either come from nothing or produce/create itself.

Yeah! What dat?

Outside of it means its not part of the creation. Meaning it didnt come into existence with the creation, it created the creation [even if the creation comes from or out of that something]

But there is no inside or outside to the universe. That is why it is a UNI verse. In such an entity, nothing can stand outside of it. It is all inclusive.

Imagine you are God. You have decided to create 'THE UNIVERSE"...TUH!..DUH! Remember. You are the smartest dude around. Which do you prefer? To create the universe from the outside, and then just sit back and play 'Absolute Authority', watching it spin round and round, or get into the driver's seat and go for a ride?....and when you do, you discover that God is none other than yours truly, little did you know.

 

[McBell]

Man that's a lot of reading. Do you also have a bible popup book?...bet you don't have one of those....

lol
No, but my daughter used to have one.

 

[johnhanks]

Is the internet down? Is not all this info every on it to back up what im saying?

Genuine scholars use peer-reviewed journals to exchange information, not websites of dubious integrity.

Is what im saying just only something i know?

I'm beginning to think that's more and more likely.

Is it not known of the what the early catholic church did? Is it not known of some of the jewish taintings of scripture and whats in the mishrah and talmud and the unscriptural noahide laws--well myabe not by all because this info is suppressed but its out there?

Ah, I was waiting for that tell-tale 'suppressed'. If I had a pound for every time someone defending a weak position assured me that the evidence on his side has been 'suppressed', I'd be - uh, probably about £20 richer.

I tell ya it just crazy

Shame, sir. How can you put such temptation in my path?

 

[johnhanks]

Heres a good challenge for this type of evolution---why if you mate a lion and tiger, the male offspring do not recieve the reproductive things it needs to carry on its genes? Can you see how evolution fails here?

No, the observation is wholly in line with evolutionary theory, specifically with the process of allopatric speciation. You might care to look up prezygotic and postzygotic reproductive isolation. Alternatively, perhaps you would like to explain in more detail why you think the observation 'fails' evolution.

 

[cottage]

Like I said this sounds logical, very logical. But when you think deeper on it one has to recognize that a God concept demands that nothing cause God to come into being. It would be a direct contradiction to the God concept. That is why I used the USP thing. You absolutely cannot have something before it or cause it.

And exactly the same reasoning applies to any necessarily existing, eternal concept! If the universe is self-existent, then there cannot be an external god.

As you will see below, i am not saying God is completely immune from the law cause and effect, i am saying that nothing caused Him to be [this even includes when there no creation at all]. In fact He created the law of cause and effect which automatically makes it effect Him.[only after He created it though]

But there is no law of cause and effect! Do you see the dichotomy here? There is no demonstrable or logical law of causality and yet God is completely dependent upon it!

Ill share something with you. Even God is not free from cause and effect because of the standards He put on Himself. He reveals to us that He is only good. So if He is not a liar and His words are always true then He has caused Himself to only do good.

This reasoning is known as the Cartesian Circle. Descartes reasoned that whatever he perceived clearly and distinctly was true, and these clear and distinct perceptions were true because God is good and he is not a deceiver. Therefore a good God exists and that guarantees that his perceptions are true. And he knows this is the case because God is good and not a deceiver…and so on and so forth. Lol!
But God, if he exists, isn't all good as the Problem of Evil demonstrates. If evil exists then God, the supposed cause of all things existent, is directly implicated.

You kinda confusing me because at times we are on the same page like whats in green, I agree with, but whats in red I don’t because you say there is no demonstration to prove that cause is necessary yet the universe, being that it had a beginning, is demonstrating the necessity for a cause, otherwise it is eternal or self existing/producing. That is the demonstration and unless we can find something in this universe, inside creation, that shows it had no beginning, then a cause for our universe is necessary

I’m sorry but I believe you have the argument upside down. There is no evidence that material substances had a beginning. Things within the world come into existence and pass out of existence and then come into existence again ad infinitum, as matter takes on various forms. It is a constant chain of cause and effect, which is internal but contingent upon the world’s necessary continuing existence, not some unknown external being.So to prove your argument you need to show that the universe was caused. And then you need to show that it was caused to exist by a personal being

No that is what people who don’t know God think. Really if ya break the whole God concept down, those who say God doesn’t desire or want should really think about what they are saying because if He didn’t have those then there would absolutely be no creation or anything else but Him. He would be a god of doing nothing. They couldn’t use the argument that He just created for no reason, hence you have the law of cause and effect come into play again here.

This is the very point I’ve made elsewhere. You need the world to argue to a Supreme Being who you want to believe created it, but if the world is the Supreme Being and self-existent, then it needs no explanation for its being and it needs no law of cause and effect! So if there is a personal God he needs a reason for creating the world, and if he has needs then he is not the Supreme Being, since by definition such a being has no needs, but has and is everything.

 

[cottage]

Okay so we can throw out the world analogy because it is not self sustaining. As far as we know it needs a sun to get to the self-sustainment aspect. So lets jump up to the universe. The universe, in order for it to be self-sustaining, it has to have all the things that are in. So far so good. But now you have to ask where did the stuff come from or even better where did the very first thing that had everything else in it come from. So now you are down to two options,

1. either the it didnt come from anything else and somehow existed in a state, at some time, where it shows evidence that it couldnt stay in
2. or something put it there and gave it a beginning

When I speak of the ‘world’ I’m not speaking of planet earth but the universe. And the sun is part of the world, or universe. (I’m using the ‘world’ in the philosophical and theological sense for all material existence; I’ll use ‘universe’ in our future discussions if it’s less confusing)
Your fourth sentence is an example of question begging: you’re assuming what you want to conclude, which is that everything is in want of a cause! If that is to be the case then exactly the same applies to God! And if the response is ‘Oh, but God is the uncaused cause’, then precisely the same thing can be said of the universe, which happens to already exist in fact.
I don’t understand what you mean in sentence #1, but if something has a beginning it can only be described as such if we can observe the beginning. And there must first be nothing of X before X can be said to have begun. (incidentally, when scientists speak of the beginning of the universe they mean the universe as we know it now, they aren't presuming to describe the first appearance of physical matter). And if it is argued that things cannot exist without being caused to exist, then that principle must apply to all things; and similarly, if it is logically possible for a thing to be eternal and self-existent then existence itself may be eternal and self-existent. Otherwise it amounts to making as special plea to what isn’t existent, while studiously ignoring what is.

Just as above #1 answers why it cant be the universe.

That really doesn’t address what I’ve written above. I’m saying if a thing is necessarily existent and eternal it doesn’t need a reason for it existence, be that God or the universe. But if the universe isn’t eternal, but was caused, then there must be a reason for its being caused.

Oh i get what your asking now , If God created the universe, what is the reason. Is this what you are asking?

Yes, that’s right.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually so far it {God] is substantiated in the fact that nothing inside of creation is eternal. For all we know something outside of creation can be eternal [if it was never created].

The (idea) of god is substantiated but we have no evidence of God(s) so he/she/it/them is not substantiated.

The word (Eternal) does not allow anyone to take anything in the known universe and say it is or isn't eternal. It means having no beginning and no end. We, at the present, can only hypothesize the universe having a beginning, or one of multiple universes. Since we exist in the (NOW) we have no idea if our universe has an ending. We know that the universe is expanding but we don't know that it has a "limit" thus at some point it will contract.

So your question doesn't really make sense....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ha nice try though because even though after they were created they dont disappear, the fact remains they were still created.

That is based on the pure assumption that they were created

Believe me i am not defending them. To them they have empirical evidence and all the rest of the stuff is just smoke and mirrors.

You need to look up empirical evidence.

It depends on what you call scripture. Ah but cannot the same thing be said of science and those who do bad science? Case in point the global warmists.

For this argument we shall refer to the Christian Bible as scripture, after all, it is you who claimed that the Bible was able to be substantiated.
And your strawman of global warming is irrelevant to the discussion.

Or it is like Paul said "that these things examples were written for our admonition" and in Hebrews it says "those things were a shadow of the true".
1 Corinthians 10:11 refers to those who were struck down by snakes and angels for denying Jesus.

Do you get that last one? Actually Paul states this in one his epistles. It means the regional flood is a shadow of what will happen to the whole world. Now if you dont understand what the symbols in the Noah Ark story mean then you have no clue what i am talking about. heres one: earth/land basically mean the carnal mind

1 Corinthians 10:11 refers to those who were struck down by snakes and angels for denying Jesus.
Hebrews 10:1 refers to the strict Hebrew Law.
So no, your cherry-picked references bear no fruit.

 

[godnotgod]

So if there is a personal God he needs a reason for creating the world, and if he has needs then he is not the Supreme Being, since by definition such a being has no needs, but has and is everything.

Unless, of course, his "reason" for creating the world is not a serious matter at all, but a sort of sport, if you will. The Hindus call this sporting mind on the part of the godhead lila, or play. Coupled with maya (ie; illusion magic), it is what creates the world that we think we see, and that is the whole point of the godhead's handiwork: that it is an illusion so perfectly fashioned and executed that you thoroughly believe it to be real. On top of that, you fail to realize that the godhead is playing cosmic hide and seek right within your own being, so lost are you in Identification with the character and role you now find yourself in at this very moment. Essentially, that character is a complete and total fraud.

You may have noticed certain statues of the seated Buddha, one hand up, palm outwards. This is known as a mudra. What the Buddha is saying is:

"Fear not. What you are witnessing, as horrific as it may seem, is not real. It is just One Big Act."

Now how would anyone know that? Hmmmm?

 

[AK4]

Prove it.

Is there not enough evidence out there all around you to show you this? You had a beginning, are you saying nothing else came before you? How about the your parents? And before them. And before them. And before them. Etc etc etc all the way back to a very beginning point. Now is there something before that point? To say there is utterly illogical and silly.

So who or what created God?

What is so difficult to understand? You CANT have nothing before the very thing that started everything. Its illogical.

Nice try.
But you will have to do your own homework.
Especially since going by the 20/20 rule (from 20 verses before to 20 verses after) I find nothing to support your "context" argument.
And before you whine about translation, I use:

Apparently you didn’t do what I said because if you did, youd see the utter nonsense of earth being in place of land.

 

[AK4]

[

In both cases, we have something emerging from nothing, which violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy. If you are saying that these laws are overridden by God, then we are talking another ball game; we are talking magic. God, in either case, is a magician, producing something from nothing.

Wrong. The scriptures say from Him [God]. So where do you find from nothing there?

The problem inherent in your model is, though you predefine God as having always existed, is that the only source for such a God is from your own mind. 'God' is an arbitrarily created entity of mind, which, itself, is self-created! Now THAT is compelling!

Where did your mind come from? Who/what gave you the body to case your brain to have chemicals produce thoughts? Who/what gave you a universe to have a galaxy to have a solar system to have a sun to have an earth to have the elements to make your body so you can have a brain so you can have chemicals so you can even conceive something in your mind an entity called God?

Well, that is exactly what a universe that manifests itself, rather than one that was created, does. When it reaches a certain point in the 'off' phase, it transforms itself back into the 'on' phase. This would be equivalent to what we call the Big Bang (or 'Grande Bungatorre', in some circles ). It is not a beginning, but just a continuation of the endless 'on/off' cycling of the universe.

Lets just go with what you said. Then explain how this universe got there? Explain which state came first, the on or the off? You cant even at all say off because if it is off, what turns it on? If you say itself then there is no way it was ever off. Can a light switch turn itself on? Even a programmed timed light switch doesn’t explain what programmed it to turn back on. You may say it programmed itself when it was on. Okay you still face the conundrum of when it was off how did it turn on the first time because it was not even programmed yet. Your analogy fails also in trying to make the universe eternal and self existing.

Oh, come now! You are just using philosophy, logic, and reason to lend authenticity and authority to this idea that God is, basically, a magician whose magic is, ultimately, a totally inexplicable mystery, but one whom you continually try to explain via of the intellect. If only you knew better, you would NEVER do such a thing, as a God that can be explained is a dead God.

God is not a magician and By that logic, everything weve discovered then is dead. Do you really believe what you said is logical? Using what you said lets say “as a universe can be explained is a dead universe”. Now does that make sense?

But there is no inside or outside to the universe. That is why it is a UNI verse. In such an entity, nothing can stand outside of it. It is all inclusive.

Come on, are you really thinking this through before you type it? UNI verse means it’s the only one. This does not say there is nothing outside of it. UNI cycle, is there only one UNI cycle? Is there nothing beyond that UNI cycle? Come on now.

Well, that is exactly what a universe that manifests itself, rather than one that was created, does. When it reaches a certain point in the 'off' phase, it transforms itself back into the 'on' phase. This would be equivalent to what we call the Big Bang (or 'Grande Bungatorre', in some circles). It is not a beginning, but just a continuation of the endless 'on/off' cycling of the universe.

I showed how an on/off universe is not logical above

 

[AK4]

[

Genuine scholars use peer-reviewed journals to exchange information, not websites of dubious integrity.

Oh so my sites are dubious because they don’t agree with your dogma. Well the same goes for yours then. Besides its on the net so anyone can peer-review them, scholarly or not.

I'm beginning to think that's more and more likely.

I assure you its not.

Ah, I was waiting for that tell-tale 'suppressed'. If I had a pound for every time someone defending a weak position assured me that the evidence on his side has been 'suppressed', I'd be - uh, probably about £20 richer.

Hardly a weak position. Stuff about the early catholic church is everywhere. The jewish stuff is there if you know what and where you are looking for. Its only “suppressed” because most Christians are sheeple who listen to their pastors as someone who is “anointed” by God and they don’t question what he/she preaches.