There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Then god isn't omnipotent either.
Murder CAN be done but you say god can't murder.
So is your statement "god can do anything god can do?"

Great. I can do anything I can do, too.

So, can god do anything that can be done?
Can murder happen?

Tell me, could you cause a universe to come into existence in such a spectacular way by causing it to expand at a speed greater then the speed of light. I think you have not thought this through sufficiently.

 

[Serenity7855]

Wrong again.

Try real education, and facts of the world you live on

You first.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Tell me, could you cause a universe to come into existence in such a spectacular way by causing it to expand at a speed greater then the speed of light. I think you have not thought this through sufficiently.

Nope! Therefore, by your argument I think I'm omnipotent, because that's something I can't do, and I can only do the things I can do, clarification needed.

Now, since I answered your question, please don't avoid mine again.


You stated god can do anything that can be done, correct?
Can murder happen, ever?

Or, as in my answer, is omnipotent simply being able to do only the things that you can do.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nope! Therefore, by your argument I think I'm omnipotent, because that's something I can't do, and I can only do the things I can do, clarification needed.

Now, since I answered your question, please don't avoid mine again.


You stated god can do anything that can be done, correct?
Can murder happen, ever?

Or, as in my answer, is omnipotent simply being able to do only the things that you can do.

I really cannot see how I can simplify this.

Omnipotent is the ability to do everything that can be done. You, as an individual, cannot do everything that can be done, because, unlike God, you do not know everything that can be done. You are a creature of limited knowledge. You just might be able to do it if you knew what it was, but you don't, so how can you say that you can do everything that can be done, if you don't know everything that can be done. It is a non-sequitur. One does not follow on from the other.

I gave an example to demonstrate my point by saying that we do not know how rapid expansion took place, but we cannot replicate it, despite knowing that it happened. That means, that as we are, we cannot be omnipotent, and to argue that we are is just an exercise in being awkward by refusing to accept what is blatantly true and obvious.

You seem to be saying that you can do anything that can be done within your sphere of existence and limitations in knowledge. You are personalising it, why, I am not sure, maybe to cast some kind of aspersions on my reasoning by discrediting the definition of omnipotent in the dictionary, but making a slipshod job of it. That is not omnipotent. Omnipotent is the ability to do everything that can be done in the universe and not just by Awkward Fingers. You are a human being, you cannot be omnipotent. Indeed, you are a anti-theist, you do not believe in omnipotence at all. Why you are arguing a point you have zero belief in is quite astonishing.

Now, since I answered your question, please don't avoid mine again.

This is just another unnecessary remark intended to agitate. It is also a falsehood as I do not intentionally avoid any question. You have judged me incorrectly.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

First, I am am agnostic atheist, not am anti theist.

And yet again, can murder be done, by anyone at all?
Is murder a possible thing?

If you do not intend to avoid questions that is wonderful, however, by your lack of am answer to the question posed, you by definition did avoid it. Perhaps it was accidental, but don't falsely accuse me of attempting to agitate you, when you demonstrable failed to answer the direct question, though I'll let both that, and falsely claiming what my beliefs are, go. Though I would appreciate it if you refrained from both activities in the future.

So, once more, simple question.

Is murder a possible thing?

Please answer this question, and not some other random tangent.

 

[outhouse]

You first.

Stop it!

I gave you a credible historical course on the NT and you refused knowledge that woul dhelp you place the NT into proper context.

You have no room at all to talk

 

[Serenity7855]

First, I am am agnostic atheist, not am anti theist.

And yet again, can murder be done, by anyone at all?
Is murder a possible thing?

If you do not intend to avoid questions that is wonderful, however, by your lack of am answer to the question posed, you by definition did avoid it. Perhaps it was accidental, but don't falsely accuse me of attempting to agitate you, when you demonstrable failed to answer the direct question, though I'll let both that, and falsely claiming what my beliefs are, go. Though I would appreciate it if you refrained from both activities in the future.

So, once more, simple question.

Is murder a possible thing?

Please answer this question, and not some other random tangent.

Murder is very possible for humans but impossible for God. Murder cannot be done by God. It is a sin. He cannot sin. He can only do that which can be done by him. Murder is not one of them.

 

[outhouse]

Murder is very possible for humans but impossible for God. Murder cannot be done by God. It is a sin. He cannot sin. He can only do that which can be done by him. Murder is not one of them.

Thanks for the definition of god from your imagination.

But ill trust the OT descriptions where he murders every innocent living thing on the planet as written, before you.


And since we know it never really happened, please keep this in literary context.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Serenity,

If god can't do any of the many things that we freely do that are considered sins, would that not make us, at least within context, more powerful than god?

You have also defined away any 'freewill' your god might have by placing such hard limitations on his abilities, haven't you?

Omnipotent eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

What of an Agnostic woman who professes total ignorance?
And atheists have very little leverage in this society. If you live in the Bible Belt, pretty much everybody automatically assumes you are a Christian and go to church. And to not have God in your life is one of the most offensive things to many people in this area. The Atheists in political power compared to Christian is very telling, here in America at least. But even across the pond it really doesn't seem like Atheists have a huge advantage in society, even if they are more accepted than they are in America.

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.

So? A cockroach can survive a nuclear holocaust. We may have more complexed brains that let us think we're more intelligent, but what has it brought? War, death, killing our own like chimpanzees, and we are destroying our own home. On the other hand, elephants, dolphins, dogs and some other primates, we are beginning to understand, have a much higher IQ than previously thought. Many species of turtles live far longer than us. Ants can lift weights that proportionately would crush us, and their communities see to the basic needs of all much more successfully than we have managed. Birds of prey have such great eyesight, grace, and explosive strength that we have used them to help us hunt our own food for nearly at least three millennia. Cats, from the smallest of domestic feline to the largest of lions and tigers, can hide and ambush prey with frightening and ghostly efficiency that we can only dream of. Bacteria, the simplest and lowliest of life on this planet, will outlive every other species on the face of the planet.
Intelligence it seems, when put in the larger picture, is highly over rated.

 

[adi2d]

What of an Agnostic woman who professes total ignorance?
And atheists have very little leverage in this society. If you live in the Bible Belt, pretty much everybody automatically assumes you are a Christian and go to church. And to not have God in your life is one of the most offensive things to many people in this area. The Atheists in political power compared to Christian is very telling, here in America at least. But even across the pond it really doesn't seem like Atheists have a huge advantage in society, even if they are more accepted than they are in America.

So? A cockroach can survive a nuclear holocaust. We may have more complexed brains that let us think we're more intelligent, but what has it brought? War, death, killing our own like chimpanzees, and we are destroying our own home. On the other hand, elephants, dolphins, dogs and some other primates, we are beginning to understand, have a much higher IQ than previously thought. Many species of turtles live far longer than us. Ants can lift weights that proportionately would crush us, and their communities see to the basic needs of all much more successfully than we have managed. Birds of prey have such great eyesight, grace, and explosive strength that we have used them to help us hunt our own food for nearly at least three millennia. Cats, from the smallest of domestic feline to the largest of lions and tigers, can hide and ambush prey with frightening and ghostly efficiency that we can only dream of. Bacteria, the simplest and lowliest of life on this planet, will outlive every other species on the face of the planet.
Intelligence it seems, when put in the larger picture, is highly over rated.

Oh good. Another poster would like to read about the evidence. You sound reasonable. I think I'm a reasonable man. A patient one too. Hopefully the OP will show us some of this evidence soon.

 

[Serenity7855]

Oh good. Another poster would like to read about the evidence. You sound reasonable. I think I'm a reasonable man. A patient one too. Hopefully the OP will show us some of this evidence soon.

Have you seen how long this thread is, 1,540 posts. Have you seen the amount of interest it has generated, 16,000 views. Are we done here? Can I now go onto fine tuning now. Is this all about you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you seen how long this thread is, 1,540 posts. Have you seen the amount of interest it has generated, 16,000 views. Are we done here? Can I now go onto fine tuning now. Is this all about you?

When you make such a claim as you did, it's not about us but you; you who must prove that humans having a higher intelligence proves the existence of god.

 

[Serenity7855]

When you make such a claim as you did, it's not about us but you; you who must prove that humans having a higher intelligence proves the existence of god.

As I have already said, if that were the only evidence available, it would be no evidence. Only when it is a part of many circumstantial evidences will it give reasonable proof of the existence of God. To proceed further requires a general acceptance that a God could have caused the big bang. Not even that he did but that he could have. When we reach that point it will become necessary to add further evidences, in this case, fine tuning.

 

[Bunyip]

As I have already said, if that were the only evidence available, it would be no evidence. Only when it is a part of many circumstantial evidences will it give reasonable proof of the existence of God. To proceed further requires a general acceptance that a God could have caused the big bang. Not even that he did but that he could have. When we reach that point it will become necessary to add further evidences, in this case, fine tuning.

No. You can add as many different non-evidential claims as you like, the total evidence remains zero.

A god could not have caused the BB, cause and effect have no meaning prior to the BB.

Fine tuning doesn't get you anywhere either - why not skip that and move on to whatever is next?

 

[McBell]

No. You can add as many different non-evidential claims as you like, the total evidence remains zero.

A god could not have caused the BB, cause and effect have no meaning prior to the BB.

Fine tuning doesn't get you anywhere either - why not skip that and move on to whatever is next?

:sad:

You don't want to hear his water in a puddle non-evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

:sad:

You don't want to hear his water in a puddle non-evidence?

You mean the amazing -"If my legs were a millimeter shorter, they would not reach the ground! Therefore Yahweh!" argument?

Well no.

 

[Magic Man]

That is just not my belief. I do not believe in a God that intervenes. I cannot believe in a God that intervenes because to do so makes the entire plan of salvation a fairy tale as intervention means free agency is being tampered with. The people who lost there lives in the flood had the option of mending their ways and then reaping the rewards, or, Continuing in their inequities and loosing their lives. They chose the latter.

I know what you are saying. That God was the one who pushed the button that gave the injection, but does that make the executioner a murderer or a facilitator of the law. I don't know if God pushed the button or turned the tap on. If he did then he did so without an alternative as those people had been warned over a long period of time, what the consequences of continuation would be. I believe that a laws was crossed and the consequences set. To say that God is a murderer is confrontational and it is done specifically to wind up Christians. He acted in the same way as your executioners do when administering the lethal injection.

OK, now you're just not making sense. You believe in the Biblical flood, but don't believe in a god who intervenes. That simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Serenity7855]

OK, now you're just not making sense. You believe in the Biblical flood, but don't believe in a god who intervenes. That simply doesn't make any sense.

How can God intervene? It would make everything pointless. How can we prove ourselves herewith if God intervenes. If God could show himself to us, and if miraculously we survived it, the knowledge would remove free agency.

I believe in the principles behind the flood. The story it portrays. I do not know if a flood ever took place. I was not there in order to verify it and I know of nobody else who was there. Were you there, did you witness the event? Nah, that wouldn't work, we would only have your word for it. No, unless there is a video of it then none of us will ever know.

 

[adi2d]

How can God intervene? It would make everything pointless. How can we prove ourselves herewith if God intervenes. If God could show himself to us, and if miraculously we survived it, the knowledge would remove free agency.

I believe in the principles behind the flood. The story it portrays. I do not know if a flood ever took place. I was not there in order to verify it and I know of nobody else who was there. Were you there, did you witness the event? Nah, that wouldn't work, we would only have your word for it. No, unless there is a video of it then none of us will ever know.

There is a video of it. Its named "Noah". Of course there is also a video named "Superman" but I don't believe Clark Kent can fly. That wouldn't be reasonable.