• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No.

That would not be correct, supernatural is saying invisible yellow ducky controls everything. Not knowing a cause is ignorance, not a supernatural explanation. :slap:

Not when you say there was no cause. That is supernatural because such a phenomenon is not known in the natural world. You are right though. Not knowing the cause is a lack of knowledge, hence the possibility pf the God hypothesis

Do you know why you are an atheist?
 

adi2d

Active Member
Nothing in the big bang theory says there was nothing prior to the expansion.
Matter can't be created or destroyed. The universe expanded. What it was like before the expansion is unknown. It could have expanded and contracted eternally. We have no evidence
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Not when you say there was no cause.

No one is saying that though

At the moment, we don't know, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause or anyone with credibility is saying there was no cause.


That is supernatural because such a phenomenon is not known in the natural world.


Not knowing a natural cause, is different from making one up. Or stating it doesn't have a cause, because when you say this, you are now defining said event as having something you don't know about.


the possibility pf the

Possibility is, my yellow ducky has the same credibility in this as your god, because your placing your god, in the gaps of your knowledge.

Don't feel bad, man has been doing this for thousands of years. the trick is learning from your mistakes.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Do you know why you are an atheist?


Yes, because I discount one more god then you do.

You discount all of the thousands of gods man has created before, the difference between us, is I discount one more then you.



And as someone who has studied biblical history and taken an interest in god, and read for years on this topic, I am armed to talk about it. I also see how ancient man combined two gods into the one god you have faith in. I also see how man has defined and changed this definition to meet cultural needs over thousands of years.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No one is saying that though

At the moment, we don't know, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause or anyone with credibility is saying there was no cause.





Not knowing a natural cause, is different from making one up. Or stating it doesn't have a cause, because when you say this, you are now defining said event as having something you don't know about.




Possibility is, my yellow ducky has the same credibility in this as your god, because your placing your god, in the gaps of your knowledge.

Don't feel bad, man has been doing this for thousands of years. the trick is learning from your mistakes.

You are just a message boy regurgitating what you have been told. You are just writing key words like "God of the gaps" etc that give an impression that you are knowledgeable on the subject. Even if God slapped you on the cheek with a wet fish you would refuse to believe he exists. This is just a belonging thing for you isn't it.

When do you intend on apologising for telling me that the rules say you have to use the quotes when they clearly do not. That is a lie.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes, because I discount one more god then you do.

You discount all of the thousands of gods man has created before, the difference between us, is I discount one more then you.



And as someone who has studied biblical history and taken an interest in god, and read for years on this topic, I am armed to talk about it. I also see how ancient man combined two gods into the one god you have faith in. I also see how man has defined and changed this definition to meet cultural needs over thousands of years.

No, no you are most definitely not armed to talk about it. You just repeat the same old thing about a subject that your are intellectually bankrupt in. You are harping on about what ancient men did and not what God did. You obviously did not study God and who he is. You talk like a historian instead of a theologian, two very different fields of study.

I discount nobodies God. I have told you that already.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
Here is the rule your breaking


You agree not to provide any Messages to the RF that (b) is knowlingly false, and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harrassing, obscene


By you playing with the quote feature, and placing others comments under my name, your making inaccurate messages that are knowingly false.


Your ignorance of the quote feature is no excuse.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes and you are forced to attack the messenger out of desperation, because you cannot refute the message.


;)

Oh my word, you are still doing it. I am attacking the messenger, am I? I am just recognising your colours, that's all.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Looks like your learning finally how to use the feature.

But you keep attacking setting a good Christian examples.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Here is the rule your breaking


You agree not to provide any Messages to the RF that (b) is knowlingly false, and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harrassing, obscene


By you playing with the quote feature, and placing others comments under my name, your making inaccurate messages that are knowingly false.


Your ignorance of the quote feature is no excuse.

You are not a Mod and you falsely accuse me.
 

TheScholar

Scholar
I can't prove that God exists anymore then I can prove Zeus exists. That's why its called Faith. I can't prove beyond a responsible doubt that he exists, but I believe he does.
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
I can't prove that God exists anymore then I can prove Zeus exists. That's why its called Faith. I can't prove beyond a responsible doubt that he exists, but I believe he does.

As an atheist, I have to say, if you can say that, and add "and therefore, won't enforce my beliefs into law, or force them onto others" I'm glad to have you around.
 

McBell

Unbound
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.

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.

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.

interesting, though not the least bit surprising is that 563 posts later the thread is STILL waiting for the proof claimed in the OP...
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Here is the rule your breaking


You agree not to provide any Messages to the RF that (b) is knowlingly false, and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harrassing, obscene


By you playing with the quote feature, and placing others comments under my name, your making inaccurate messages that are knowingly false.


Your ignorance of the quote feature is no excuse.

Did you know that under British there is an onus on the accuser to show intent. I did not intentionally do anything malicious or untoward . If I inadvertently did, what you have falsely accused me of, then I put the error right. Trolling is also against the rules, which is what you are doing now. Derailing the thread is also against the rules. By pointing out an inconsequential error you are intentionally smoke screening the topic of debate because you can no longer defend your position.
 
Last edited:
Top