There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Still waiting :slap:

334 pages of dribble

You do realise that many of those posts were from you, right? Which means you are condemning your own post as dribble.

 

[Serenity7855]

You can go through this thread and find out. You claimed you forgot to credit a quote.

You have been asked what book it was "taken from". Why is that so har?

It is not "har", as you have mis-spelt it after you laughed at my grammatical error. Maybe you have heard of the saying that "those who laugh last, laugh the loudest." I do not wish to quote from whom this was taken as I do not wish for his name to be dragged in the same dirt that you tend to drag other Christian through on here. It is called respect. It is a moral thing.

 

[outhouse]

You do realise that many of those posts were from you, right? Which means you are condemning your own post as dribble.

In defense of reality, from fanaticism is never dribble my son

 

[adi2d]

It is not "har", as you have mis-spelt it after you laughed at my grammatical error. Maybe you have heard of the saying that "those who laugh last, laugh the loudest." I do not wish to quote from whom this was taken as I do not wish for his name to be dragged in the same dirt that you tend to drag other Christian through on here. It is called respect. It is a moral thing.

I'm sure I could take any reasonable person and prove that your God condom remark was funnier than a missing letter

If you won't state your source you surely have that right.

 

[cottage]

No, my claim was that they are both living organisms that are comparable in many areas.

1. Christianity : within Christian faiths there can be found in the hierarchy Arch Bishops, Bishops, and Cardinals. The most reverent and Holy of humanity.the revered and respected.

Science : The same hierarchy exists in sciences. The professors, Scientists and then Doctors. The most esteemed and intellectual of all mankind.

2. Christianity : we have the scriptures that guide and direct us into paths of righteousness. The commandments, principles, analogous parables and precepts to make sure that the result of our endeavours are wholesome and true

Science : has the scientific method by which all knew discoveries are made and solidified.it has the protocols that insure good practice and published papers to show how things have been achieved and recognised.

3. Christianity : most denominations have paid ministry, unfortunately, as money corrupts and puts men into positions of power where they should never be. Those that are in it for a job or other not so honourable desires, instead of Christians converted by the Holy Ghost. They draw near to Him with their mouths but in their hearts they are far from him, like a newly white washed tomb, clean and bright on the outside but inside full of dead men's bones.

Science : science has sponsored research by unscrupulous backers who are looking for maximum returns on there investments. To the point where the value of life becomes secondary to profit. Pharmaceutical companies are the worst offenders.

With respect I think you’ve made a very poor argument for science being a religion. And there is no necessary connection between atheism and science, which is what I believe you want to imply, since there are some very highly esteemed theist scientists. So if what you say is true then we would have people that worship two religions: Christianity, for example, and science. But I think even you can see that position is beyond ridiculous. I haven’t addressed all your points because frankly they make little sense. However if you think they deserve a response then re-post them and I’ll answer them by return.

4. Christians believe in Diety.

Science believes that the ethos of science is God like and they even have their own saints, like St. Richard Dawkins, St. Stephen Hawkins and St. Brian Cox, amongst many others.

Oh that’s pure nonsense. The term “Science believes” makes no sense at all. There is no supra-creed or doctrine that ordains scientists with saint-like recognition but only respects their work or achievements, which being subject to peer review is constantly open to being proved wrong. That is the ethos of science. Compare that with a deity who by its very essence is defined as an entity that is perfection itself and thus can never be faulted?

5. Christians have congregations

Science has researchers.

6. Science thinks it has the answer to all things, or will have given enough time.

Christians believe their God is omnipotent and omniscient.

The heart of Christianity is God. The heart of Science is the scientific method. Without these two organs nothing would be able to exist. Both survive on a ethos, a culture that bear many similarities. Both claim to be right.

The scientific method is itself a theory, and if something were discovered to improve upon or replace the theory then obviously that would become the new basis for science, and this is because every fact can be true or false. Now if you are accepting that God and Christianity can be false, then we are on the same page, but if not then your comparison is logically absurd.

 

[cottage]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

Looking back at your OP there are some very arrogant assumptions and a rather patronising tone. They are that you claim you could “satisfy the mind” of any reasonable and impartial man to the existence of God than not; that’s a very patronising assumption. Then there is accusation that atheists use “brain washing techniques”, which is a completely false assertion. You also said atheists “preach counterfeit arguments” but you didn’t support that claim with any evidence.

You also claim to be able to demonstrate that a “superior force” caused the universe to come into existence, but have not done so. You claimed to show that, and I quote, the Kalam argument “is sufficient to do that on its own”, but all the crucial points of my critique have gone unanswered.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Another blind and unsupported assertion! Since it is not possible to go outside experience we cannot argue to other worlds, presuming to know that causality can function beyond or outside experience. In the case of a deity there is an evident absurdity where an eternal being can only bring worlds into existence by means of a temporal effect; in other words by employing a time-related principle to create a time-dependent object.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

There is no categorical claim among atheists that God does not exist, but there pretty much general agreement among atheists that “God exists” is not a truth, in other words it is not demonstrable, meaning that “God does not exist” implies no contradiction, since he might not.

 

[Serenity7855]

With respect I think you’ve made a very poor argument for science being a religion.

One of the definitions in the dictionary for religion is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Do you deny that this sentence describes science. If yes then it can be defined as a religion.

And there is no necessary connection between atheism and science, which is what I believe you want to imply, since there are some very highly esteemed theist scientists.

So, do you assert that because there are some relatively highly esteemed theist scientists that there is no connection between science and atheism.

Even If Most Scientists Are Atheist, Don’t Philosophers Come to the Rescue for God and Religion? Turns Out, No.​

Posted on May 23, 2013 by adversusapologetica

It is difficult to deny that there is a strong negative trend between professional expertise in the field of science and traditional monotheistic beliefs. 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in the existence of god, while an almost reversed proportion of 92% of the general American public do believe in a god. While different polls have slightly different numbers, and while the specific views people hold about a god can vary within many shades of grey, it is still hard to deny that there is an inverse relationship between one’s expert background in science and their belief in monotheism.

Even If Most Scientists Are Atheist, Don’t Philosophers Come to the Rescue for God and Religion? Turns Out, No. |

In my own experience most scientists are atheists. I

So if what you say is true then we would have people that worship two religions: Christianity, for example, and science. But I think even you can see that position is beyond ridiculous.

"Even I can see that position is beyond ridiculous." What is that supposed to mean. Is it a sly dig at my ability to comprehend something. If so, was it a necessary comment to make and did it contribute to the overall discussion, or just inject more hostility in the argument. I feel that the latter is true.

We have far more religions/organisms then just two.Science is just one of them. Freemasonry, the Illuminati, the National Health Service, the Government, NATO, the FDA, CIA, MI5, the Universe and the earth's ecosystem are just a few.

I haven’t addressed all your points because frankly they make little sense.

Thank you, I never had that problem when writing it. Is it because you are unable to comprehend the words that I have written or that the concept of my retort escapes you? I cannot help you on the former, but the latter I could guide you through the similarities that I have produced.

However if you think they deserve a response then re-post them and I’ll answer them by return.

I just posted my response to your post. It is your perogative as to whether you answer it or not.

Oh that’s pure nonsense.

Thank you again, however, it did not seem like nonsense when I wrote it. Must be down to my poor education or an inability, on your part, to understand what I am saying.

The term “Science believes” makes no sense at all.

It does when you visualise it as a intelligent living organism. Yes, it takes a certain ability to be able to stand back and see science as a whole with all of its functioning parts. When you are able do that, it will make sense to you.

There is no supra-creed or doctrine that ordains scientists with saint-like recognition but only respects their work or achievements, which being subject to peer review is constantly open to being proved wrong.

Oh ye of little vision. There may not be a physical ordination for all to see, however, it is very much there and very much used by the devout members of the science community. In the name of science I ordain you as the man who starts the LHC.

That is the ethos of science. Compare that with a deity who by its very essence is defined as an entity that is perfection itself and thus can never be faulted?

Read some of the post on here to see a science that can never be faulted by those who support it, especially when Christians critique it as they are thick because they believe in God. Science bears the same characteristics as God. Omnipotent and Omniscient. It hold all the keys to our chance existence and can demonstrate that our existence is a chance happening having no cause or reason. That we are massively more intelligent then our nearest counterpart in the animal Kingdom by unmitigated coincidence.

The scientific method is itself a theory, and if something were discovered to improve upon or replace the theory then obviously that would become the new basis for science, and this is because every fact can be true or false.

An explanation of the scientific method is not necessary. Everytime I mention it, the atheists here volunteer their definition of it. What is important is what it represents.

Now if you are accepting that God and Christianity can be false, then we are on the same page, but if not then your comparison is logically absurd.

Christians live by faith. That means there is alway a chance that it may be false as the only evidence we have is a personal witness from the Holy Ghost.

 

[Ouroboros]

I used to hate auto-correct but I'm starting to like it, thanks to gems like these!

You should see some of the texts I've sent to people. Auto correct really does have a filthy mind!

I've had some crazy ones too. That's why I avoid posting from my phone. Too dangerous.

 

[Serenity7855]

Looking back at your OP there are some very arrogant assumptions and a rather patronising tone.

That is how you might have read it, as a cynic, but you are one of those to whom I point an exposing figure at. I saw it as a statement of absolute truth.

They are that you claim you could “satisfy the mind” of any reasonable and impartial man to the existence of God than not; that’s a very patronising assumption.

No, it is the truth. I have done it. You may need to check the definition of "patronising "

Then there is accusation that atheists use “brain washing techniques”, which is a completely false assertion.

No, it is not.

You also said atheists “preach counterfeit arguments” but you didn’t support that claim with any evidence.

I have exposed lie after lie told by atheists who think they know what Christians believe in but preach a false doctrine in order to win points.

You also claim to be able to demonstrate that a “superior force” caused the universe to come into existence, but have not done so.

This is one of those counterfeit claims that atheists make. I claimed that it could be a God. "I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not."

You claimed to show that, and I quote, the Kalam argument “is sufficient to do that on its own”, but all the crucial points of my critique have gone unanswered.

Yes, the Kalam argument is sufficient on its own to show that God could have caused the universe to come into existence.

Look, it has not gone without notice that you wrongly believe you have put forward a good case to demolish KCA, but you have not. You have split hairs, dissected words and their meaning, repeated yourself over and over again, and have deviced unrelated analogies, however, you have never succeeded in falsifying the first premise. You have desperately tried but you have logically failed. You have claimed that I have not answered, but atheists make that claim all the time, because it is an easier way to discredit someone than by using the truth.

Another blind and unsupported assertion! Since it is not possible to go outside experience we cannot argue to other worlds, presuming to know that causality can function beyond or outside experience. In the case of a deity there is an evident absurdity where an eternal being can only bring worlds into existence by means of a temporal effect; in other words by employing a time-related principle to create a time-dependent object.

An eternal being is subjected to time. Eternal is a measure of time. To live forever is a statement that needs time to be true. You now say that the cause was temporal when none of us know that. KCA is an argument and not a statement of fact.. The cause could have been temporal, as the hypothesis fits, but it is not a certainty. God is omnipotent, he does not need to provide a cause. But that makes the existence of a god even more tenable because a causeless cause is a supernatural event. God is a supernatural entity.

There is no categorical claim among atheists that God does not exist, but there pretty much general agreement among atheists that “God exists” is not a truth, in other words it is not demonstrable, meaning that “God does not exist” implies no contradiction, since he might not.

God gave us a promise that if you want to know of his existence then follow the method that he has given us to do it, and he will manifest the truth of it unto all who ask. I can personally testify that it is true and that God does indeed live and loves us. Of that the Holy Ghost has testified to my soul. I am either a liar, deluded or telling the truth. You decide, but remember we are all accountable for our choices.

 

[Sapiens]

I said it was taken from a book. Why were you looking for a quote

Quotes are oft sentences or paragraphs taken from books.

The only real Bs, that is to be found on this forum, is usually in your post.

Coming from a demonstrable liar and hypocrite like yourself I consider that a complement.

When I have to answer to you or have to comply to your requests to "shut the he'll up" I will no longer be a member of this forum. It is sufficient for Christians to have to endure your presence here and read the sheer drivel you write and copy and paste dishonestly. Now, please be about your own business and stop bothering me with your nasty, odious, insulting, rude, derogatory, vexing, galling, provocative, impertinent, uncivil, and impolite mouth.

Not very serene today, eh?

If the truth hurts too much, and you're too incompetent to make your case, there's always the option of blocking me.

I make it my business to expose the likes of you ... and this is often the way it comes out. You over-reach and then over-react. That call loosing badly! Welcome to the confusion of the Black Knight ... it is more than a flesh wound.:yes:

 

[Serenity7855]

Quotes are oft sentences or paragraphs taken from books.
Coming from a demonstrable liar and hypocrite like yourself I consider that a complement.

But I did not say that I was quoting anything. I said that I had "taken it from", that is, to abridge it in my own words, not a identical copy, so that I would not have to link it to a source that may reveal my identity. The fact is that you took an analogy from a highly respected scientist, who is a theist, and you have trashed it in your attempt to dishonestly discredit me. Another demonstration of how atheist have no moral accountability. You have made it clear that you do not recognise logic as much as you claim to. You critiqued the words of a Nobel Prize Winner. The arrogance that you must possess is astonishing.

If I am a demonstrable liar, as you have asserted that I am, contrary to forum rules, then maybe you can demonstrate to me, and anyone else reading this, just where I have lied, or be branded a liar yourself.

Not very serene today, eh?

I am serene everyday, I just do not waste my serenity on odious fools. Posters who use offense and insults in the place of constructive logical rhetoric.

If the truth hurts too much, and you're too incompetent to make your case, there's always the option of blocking me.

The truth sets me free, it never hurts. It only hurts those when their dishonesty is exposed by the truth, do you know what I mean?

My compedence is very adequate for my level of education and age, but it still exceeds your bias and blinker vision.

Yes, I have thought about blocking you because of your constant immoral offensiveness, however, I caught you out plagiarising, when you had only been here but a few days, so I feel responsible to keep a keen eye on your post in the event that you may try and dupe some other unsuspecting Christian.

I make it my business to expose the likes of you ... and this is often the way it comes out. You over-reach and then over-react. That call loosing badly! Welcome to the confusion of the Black Knight ... it is more than a flesh wound.:yes:

Touché, that is exactly my obligation to fellow Christians on here, to insure that atheists like you do not entrap and ensnare my brothers and sisters, who post on here, with your dishonest antics and viciously denegrating posts, intended to insult and offend without any moral accountability. I make it my business to expose the heathens, gainsayers and troublemakers who proactively fight against the lamb.

 

[Sapiens]

But I did not say that I was quoting anything. I said that I had "taken it from", that is, to abridge it in my own words, not a identical copy, so that I would not have to link it to a source that may reveal my identity. The fact is that you took an analogy from a highly respected scientist, who is a theist, and you have trashed it in your attempt to dishonestly discredit me. Another demonstration of how atheist have no moral accountability. You have made it clear that you do not recognise logic as much as you claim to. You critiqued the words of a Nobel Prize Winner. The arrogance that you must possess is astonishing.

Then reveal the identity of your inspiration, Many now think your full of crap. Only you can prove us wrong.

That won't be the first Nobel Prize winner I've critiqued. I've know literally dozens over the years, a couple were even family friends (my Dad was on the faculty at Stanford, though as a Berkeley grad I hate to admit that). Some were great scientists, had a broad view and were wonderful human beings. Others were just a rather average PhD type guy who was in the right place at the right time and really was not much of first rank thinker, even in the narrow confines of their own field.

If I am a demonstrable liar, as you have asserted that I am, contrary to forum rules, then maybe you can demonstrate to me, and anyone else reading this, just where I have lied, or be branded a liar yourself.

All I can do is suspect ... the proof is (or is not) in your hands. Put up or shut up.

I am serene everyday, I just do not waste my serenity on odious fools. Posters who use offense and insults in the place of constructive logical rhetoric.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

The truth sets me free, it never hurts. It only hurts those when their dishonesty is exposed by the truth, do you know what I mean?

Then you must be in heavy chains and be hurting plenty.

My compedence is very adequate for my level of education and age, but it still exceeds your bias and blinker vision.

Yes, we are all highly impressed by your "compedence."

Yes, I have thought about blocking you because of your constant immoral offensiveness, however, I caught you out plagiarising, when you had only been here but a few days, so I feel responsible to keep a keen eye on your post in the event that you may try and dupe some other unsuspecting Christian.

That is false, we went through it at the time. I showed how I was well within the creative commons guidelines for acceptable usage. If you insist on continuing this base canard I will report it and demand sanctions.

Touché, that is exactly my obligation to fellow Christians on here, to insure that atheists like you do not entrap and ensnare my brothers and sisters, who post on here, with your dishonest antics and viciously denegrating posts, intended to insult and offend without any moral accountability. I make it my business to expose the heathens, gainsayers and troublemakers who proactively fight against the lamb.

Damn right touché, and more than a flesh-wound. It is clear to me that given your druthers you'd have censorship and witch hunts directed against any whom you perceive as dishonest, denigrating, insulting, offending, lacking in moral accountability, heathen gainsaying trouble makers who like to eat lamb. I, on the other hand welcome input from all such reprobates ... I even believe in your right to spew your crap.

 

[adi2d]

You forget almost every single time you take quotes from outside sources. For someone who is constantly claiming that everyone else is dishonest, I find it quite bizarre and hypocritical. Also, I work in academia and plagiarism really chaps my hide. Of course people forget to cite their source from time to time, but not as consistently as you seem to do, which again is weird coming from someone with your particular attitude toward others.

It was far out in left field from the post being responded to, as someone else already pointed out.

Something I rarely do? I wrote big long posts in direct response to your assertions and arguments only to have you completely ignore them.

Like I said, I’m involved in academia – I can smell plagiarism. I suspected that’s what it was and checked it out.

Don’t bother trying to psychoanalyze me. You’re not even remotely qualified to do so.

Stoop to such low acts? You’re the one trying to pass off other people’s words as your own while constantly whining about the supposed inherent dishonesty of basically anyone you disagree with. You're the one who refers to Wikipedia as "spurious" when others use it but feel free to use it yourself. You're the one insulting and denigrating large groups of people. Nice attempt to turn the tables on me though. Good grief.

Here is where someone checked out your posts. You seemed to think s/he was out of line for checking on you.
Was this another example of you using others words as your own?

I would like to see your source to see how closely this renowned scientist matches your interpretation

I could not care less who you are. Promise I won't try and track you down

 

[cottage]

One of the definitions in the dictionary for religion is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Do you deny that this sentence describes science. If yes then it can be defined as a religion.

Your careful selection of a definition, for which you haven’t supplied a source, could be equally applied to my sport of motorcycle racing, or golf, or any hobby or interest carried on with an intensity or unbridled enthusiasm. I don’t fall on my me knees to pray for more BHP and I don’t believe there is a Supreme time-keeper overlooking the circuit, and nor does my sport form my world view. Also I cared for my late wife with zeal and a conscientious devotion on a principle of love and duty, but it was hardly religious in any respect.

So, do you assert that because there are some relatively highly esteemed theist scientists that there is no connection between science and atheism.

Well of course not!! Please read what I actually wrote, which was this: “…there is no necessary connection between atheism and science”. A necessary connection would mean X is a scientist, therefore X is an atheist.

In my own experience most scientists are atheists. I

That may well be the case, but the argument concerns your claim that science is a religion. “Some scientists are theists” we’ve agreed is a true statement, therefore it is self-contradictory to say that it is possible for scientist X to both believe and disbelieve in (for example), the Christian faith.

"Even I can see that position is beyond ridiculous." What is that supposed to mean. Is it a sly dig at my ability to comprehend something. If so, was it a necessary comment to make and did it contribute to the overall discussion, or just inject more hostility in the argument. I feel that the latter is true.

Oh for heaven’s sake please stop portraying yourself as a victim! You are so very easily offended, and it’s almost a case of having to walk on egg shells half the time when I’m debating you. Remember the forum adage: Attack the posts but not the posters.

We have far more religions/organisms then just two.Science is just one of them. Freemasonry, the Illuminati, the National Health Service, the Government, NATO, the FDA, CIA, MI5, the Universe and the earth's ecosystem are just a few.

Well, that explanation evidently works against you. If almost every belief amounts to a religion then you are beholding to several religions yourself, which means Christianity can have no ascendancy over the others.

It does when you visualise it as a intelligent living organism. Yes, it takes a certain ability to be able to stand back and see science as a whole with all of its functioning parts. When you are able do that, it will make sense to you.

There is nothing in what you’ve said above that is saying anything meaningful to me. Expand on the point you want to make by using examples or analogies and then I can give you a full and proper response.

Oh ye of little vision. There may not be a physical ordination for all to see, however, it is very much there and very much used by the devout members of the science community. In the name of science I ordain you as the man who starts the LHC.

Again you’re not saying much of anything. The argument I gave you is that scientists are quite rightly given respect and adulation for their work and achievements but they aren’t saints as per this popular dictionary.com definition: “A person who after death is formally recognised as having attained through holy deeds or behaviour and an exalted place in heaven and the right to veneration.” I’m breaking my own rule here never to refer to dictionary definitions as they cannot be offered as evidence, which this example certainly isn’t, but I think it can be allowed simply to distinguish the broad difference between the two camps.

Read some of the post on here to see a science that can never be faulted by those who support it, especially when Christians critique it as they are thick because they believe in God. Science bears the same characteristics as God. Omnipotent and Omniscient. It hold all the keys to our chance existence and can demonstrate that our existence is a chance happening having no cause or reason. That we are massively more intelligent then our nearest counterpart in the animal Kingdom by unmitigated coincidence.

There is no science that can never be faulted, not the first and second laws of thermodynamics, not the principle of gravity or causation, not the periodic table or any other scientific fact. It is utterly absurd to speak of science as Omnipotent (omniscience is included in omnipotence), since it consists only of observation and predictions, which can never be demonstrated. So I wait with baited breath to hear about this scientific Christian truth that can never be faulted.

An explanation of the scientific method is not necessary. Everytime I mention it, the atheists here volunteer their definition of it. What is important is what it represents.

But I haven’t given you a definition of the scientific method! Quite the opposite! What I said to you is that the scientific method is itself a contingent proposition and open to rejection or amendment.

Christians live by faith. That means there is alway a chance that it may be false as the only evidence we have is a personal witness from the Holy Ghost.

So you’re saying that God and Christianity exist on the same basis as science, which is to say it can be true or false. Against that science provides evidence of what exists on the basis of induction, that is to say a high degree of probability recognised by theists and atheists alike. And the difference is that unlike God we know the world actually exists.

 

[cottage]

That is how you might have read it, as a cynic, but you are one of those to whom I point an exposing figure at. I saw it as a statement of absolute truth.

Fair enough, then please back up those sweeping assertions with evidence.

No, it is the truth. I have done it. You may need to check the definition of "patronising "

The arrogant claim was that you said you could convince “any reasonable and impartial man” that it is more likely than not that God exists. That is a supremely patronising statement, i.e. condescending and haughty, and one that can never be demonstrably true.

No, it is not.

Then kindly provide evidence instead of simply making these assertions. We know of religious cults that have been accused of brain washing their converts, denying parents and friends access to them etc. But even on that account it would be an absurd generalisation to imply that type of behaviour is indicative of theists, and yet you presume to tarnish atheists with an unevidenced general assertion.

I have exposed lie after lie told by atheists who think they know what Christians believe in but preach a false doctrine in order to win points.

So, you are talking about individual atheists and not atheism. That does not concern me or atheism in general. For example I don’t judge theism by your obvious loathing of atheism; in fact I have had many sparring partners over the years for whom I have unconditional respect.

This is one of those counterfeit claims that atheists make. I claimed that it could be a God. "I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not."

This is the remark I’m speaking of:

“Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence”.

Really! Okay then, so present the demonstration?

An eternal being is subjected to time. Eternal is a measure of time. To live forever is a statement that needs time to be true. You now say that the cause was temporal when none of us know that. KCA is an argument and not a statement of fact.. The cause could have been temporal, as the hypothesis fits, but it is not a certainty. God is omnipotent, he does not need to provide a cause. But that makes the existence of a god even more tenable because a causeless cause is a supernatural event. God is a supernatural entity.

I take no pleasure in having to keep picking you up on where you contradict yourself. Causality is temporal, i.e. contingent, because it isn’t logically necessary. And you agree with this where you say: “but it is not a certainty.” Now if causality were temporal then we’d have an infinite regression of temporal causes, which is impossible. And “everlasting” and “eternal” have two different meanings. “God is eternal” means he has no beginning and no end, he has always existed and will continue to exist forever, whereas the notion of God being temporal, existing in time, runs to a contradiction, for as Dominican friar, Brian Davis, says: “If God is a changing individual it could not be true that God is the first cause of all change as the cosmological argument holds. And those who believe that God is a changing individual will have to accept what many find unbelievable: that a changing individual can be the uncaused cause of a changing universe”. Source: An Introduction to the philosophy of religion. (second edition).

God gave us a promise that if you want to know of his existence then follow the method that he has given us to do it, and he will manifest the truth of it unto all who ask. I can personally testify that it is true and that God does indeed live and loves us. Of that the Holy Ghost has testified to my soul. I am either a liar, deluded or telling the truth. You decide, but remember we are all accountable for our choices.

But it is not a truth! For as you said “there is always a chance that it may be false.” A thing that is actual is also possible, but a thing that is possible does not imply actuality.

 

[outhouse]

His name changed with the factual definitions men keep changing.


The Abrahamic god as we know it, was factually born in Canaanite mythology.

Israelites were factually polytheistic.

Then two gods were factually fused together as one god, El and Yahweh.

Yahweh was later defined as the only god by a king. Political process.

So the early bible has two different names that were redacted into one god. Elohim was used to remove traces of El, and Elohims translation as well as El's translation changed due to these redactions so it would look like one god.


Then he name was refused to be spoken

then they called him lord


then they added jesus as a son


Then a court hearing redefined god again as the trinity.


Then islam redefined god



john smith redefined god



They are all wrong

 

[cottage]

Yes, the Kalam argument is sufficient on its own to show that God could have caused the universe to come into existence.

Look, it has not gone without notice that you wrongly believe you have put forward a good case to demolish KCA, but you have not. You have split hairs, dissected words and their meaning, repeated yourself over and over again, and have deviced unrelated analogies, however, you have never succeeded in falsifying the first premise. You have desperately tried but you have logically failed. You have claimed that I have not answered, but atheists make that claim all the time, because it is an easier way to discredit someone than by using the truth.

Now come on, the above is nothing more than a complaining diatribe, no argument, or evidence. Please state where I have “split hairs” and “devised unrelated analogies”? It seems to me that instead of defending the argument you seem more inclined to disparage atheists.


I’ll give you my objection once again. See if you can actually address the objection without trying to by-pass it with other explanations, al a WLC. And by the way the primary premise is merely one of my several objections to the Kalam, but I’m persevering with it because I’m not sure from your previous responses that you’ve fully got the argument I’m making, which is not unique to me but has also been made by a number of philosophers and has not to my knowledge been refuted.

Below I’ve laid out my objection in full and in a way to make it simple to follow. Oh and please note there are no personal attacks and no mention of theists or theism.


The primary premise is really a sleight of hand assertion. In response we are entitled to ask from which sense impression do we derive: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”? For no present experience can confirm what the statement confidently announces to be the case as a general proposition, and no purely logical argument passes the test of non-contradiction. The argument can only apply to the particular, and that is to say by inference from what actually exists. So we see at once that the argument has an omission, and so I’ve inserted the missing clause into the primary premise to see if that helps us out of the difficulty, but as I explain below it does not!

P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form. In all cases the new objects are formed from already existent matter. No new matter is being introduced into the universe and so the objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly supposes. And if we don’t see things beginning to exist then we certainly can’t ascribe a cause to them!

So if we only see changes or alteration in matter then let’s try this:

1. Whatever changes form has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. The universe has a cause

Clearly that doesn’t work either, since #1 cannot imply #3 even though we accept #2 because #1 can only be true of what we observe in the universe and therefore it cannot be held that the universe as a whole requires a cause.

At the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

If we accept #1 and #2 as above then the premises are valid and the argument is sound. But because the premises are derived inductively the deductive argument even in this form can never be certain. But I think most people would agree that it is a modest and reasonable conclusion that doesn’t seek to sophistically venture outside experience.

Returning to the argument in its original form, the conclusion (P1) is arrived at by a false or misleading inference. But the argument would be fallacious on not one but two points for even if it were true that things in the universe began to exist, it does not follow that if objects beginning to exist in the universe have a cause then the universe itself must have a cause. That is the Fallacy of Composition, where it is claimed that whatever is true of a part of an object is therefore true of the whole object. That would be like saying because it is known that if the reciprocating components of an engine are reliable then it follows that the engine itself will be reliable. If we cannot assert that causal relations will exist outside the universe merely by inference from what we experience within the universe, and if causal relations can’t be established beyond our experience, then how can it be asserted that the universe itself is caused by something external to experience? Kant, one of the greatest modern philosophers, identified the fallacy that “Everything that is contingent must have a cause is a principle without significance except in the sensible world. For the purely intellectual concept of the contingent cannot produce any synthetical proposition like that of causality.” Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point is not worth the investigation you seek after. It was my presentation of someone elses beliefs adopted by myself. What is important is that the two self proclaimed highly intelligent posters on here criticised the words of a well respected scientist. They did it thinking that it was from me and tried to discredit it with their dishonest and immoral appraisal of it, but it has back fired on them making them look the fools. I am a messenger, I do not write the message. I have told both of these poster this, yet they still insult words that are usually not mine trying to elevate themselves. Frankly, It is fun to witness stumbling trolls.

The fact that you still won't reveal this unknown author you keep talking about speaks volumes about you, not about anyone else.

There's nothing dishonest or immoral in disagreeing with something, no matter who said it. I wonder why you think it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you point that out only I did not see that in his post.

Post #2654, 3160, 3181.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not "har", as you have mis-spelt it after you laughed at my grammatical error. Maybe you have heard of the saying that "those who laugh last, laugh the loudest." I do not wish to quote from whom this was taken as I do not wish for his name to be dragged in the same dirt that you tend to drag other Christian through on here. It is called respect. It is a moral thing.

Then you shouldn't quote or paraphrase the person in question.