Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Ayjaydee]

So, you admit you have nothing. These are religious debates, so I've been trying to use logic and cosmological arguments. Also, scientific cosmology is still philosophy. There is the philosophy of science tho.



All you are doing is making assertions KCA is invalid.

Then, show us how the big bang had a beginning. The ToE already had a beginning as a cell was given to Darwin. Darwin didn't create the ToE. What he did was explain how it worked.

The big bang cosmology already had a beginning as it sounds like big bang ex nihilo or big bang from nothing. IOW, one can't state there were something like quantum particles as nothing. Thus, Stephen Hawking died trying to find evidence for his beginning. Nothing should mean nothing or what the Bible describes as the void.

No one here claimed that there was nothing before the big bang except you

 

[3rdAngel]

When there is insufficient evidence, the best tactic is to withhold belief either way. And a lack of belief either way implies a lack of belief in a God, which is atheism.

Not necessarily. As posted earlier elsewhere in that same post, the Christian know they cannot conclusively prove God through external evidence and admits to living by faith. However they do so knowing that they have the evidence of personal experience and the collective witness to the revelation of God. Athiesm on the other hand denies the belief in God or the existence in God yet it also has no evidence therefore hold simply to a belief that is also faith based but in the opposite direction. As posted earlier insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true of not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Not necessarily. As posted earlier elsewhere in that same post, the Christian know they cannot conclusively prove God through external evidence and admits to living by faith. However they do so knowing that they have the evidence of personal experience and the collective witness to the revelation of God. Athiesm on the other hand denies the belief in God or the existence in God yet it also has no evidence therefore hold simply to a belief that is also faith based but in the opposite direction. As posted earlier insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true of not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

Link to his denial?

 

[3rdAngel]

Your beliefs are faith based, because you have faith in the Bible as the word of a God, and you have faith that your experiences are real ones. What is it, again, that atheists have faith in? They have faith that no evidence exists? No, faith is not their motivator. Skepticism is their motivator. Their beliefs are based in skepticism, not faith. They see no evidence; they are skeptical about the claims of others.

A disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God. A belief that has no evidence is simply faith based. A detailed response to the definition claims of Athiesm and your argument supporting athiesm has been provided in post # 669. Please feel free to respond to it

 

[Ayjaydee]

A disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God. A belief that has no evidence is simply faith based. Detailed response in post # 669. Please feel free to respond to it

Two different things

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just continue to ignore you because you never or rarely answer my questions. Where is your cosmological argument? It means there is no quid pro quo in posting with you. All you do is ask a question after I give you the answer. It means you really don't have any good argument (just assertions or opinions). You do not have any valid sources as you do not post links I can read. IOW, you are boring af. It means you're an ignoramus and can be ignored. OTOH, I present valid arguments, so you can't help but follow like the low brow internet atheist you are.

Ask a proper question and it will be answered. Most of what you post is nonsense so you have no grounds for complaint.

And I don't have a "cosmological argument" nor do I need one. You do not seem to understand that no cosmological argument is better than a failed one. We know that your argument is wrong and why it is wrong.

And watch the name calling. It is both against the rules and since you make yourself look far more ignorant than anyone that you debate with you really should not call anyone "lowbrow" That implies that you are even less than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God. A belief that has no evidence is simply faith based. A detailed response to the definition claims of Athiesm and your argument supporting athiesm has been provided in post # 669. Please feel free to respond to it

What do you mean? I can go to the source:

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope."


There you go. I witness testimony that I do not believe in God. No faith required.

 

[3rdAngel]

Link to his denial?

Google a deinition of Athiesm if you do not know what it means Ayjay . Here let me help you, feel free to click on any of the following links...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
4. Merriam Webster dictionary
5. Cambridge Dictionary
6. Dictionary.com
7. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
8. Wiki
9. Your Dictionary
10. Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
Merriam Webster dictionary

Hope this helps

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you admit you have nothing. These are religious debates, so I've been trying to use logic and cosmological arguments. Also, scientific cosmology is still philosophy. There is the philosophy of science tho.



All you are doing is making assertions KCA is invalid.

Then, show us how the big bang had a beginning. The ToE already had a beginning as a cell was given to Darwin. Darwin didn't create the ToE. What he did was explain how it worked.

The big bang cosmology already had a beginning as it sounds like big bang ex nihilo or big bang from nothing. IOW, one can't state there were something like quantum particles as nothing. Thus, Stephen Hawking died trying to find evidence for his beginning. Nothing should mean nothing or what the Bible describes as the void.

People have explained to you the flaws in the KCA. Why did you ignore them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google a deinition of Athiesm if you do not know what it means Ayjay . Here let me help you, feel free to click on any of the following links...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
4. Merriam Webster dictionary
5. Cambridge Dictionary
6. Dictionary.com
7. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
8. Wiki
9. Your Dictionary
10. Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
Merriam Webster dictionary

Hope this helps

You forgot. We understand it. You are the one that cannot understand a simple definition that refutes your claims.

This is why I offered to break things down for you.

 

[3rdAngel]

What do you mean? I can go to the source:

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope."


There you go. I witness testimony that I do not believe in God. No faith required.

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God and the existence of God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope." I do not believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of God.

Questioner: So if you do not believe in God where is your evidence?

Subduction Zone: I have none

Questioner: So if you have no evidence for your belief than your belief is based on faith?

Subduction Zone: Humm Nope I did not say that

Questioner: Here are your own words here XXXXX

Subduction Zone: Hmmmm ??? Well I made a mistake

 

[3rdAngel]

You forgot. We understand it. You are the one that cannot understand a simple definition that refutes your claims. This is why I offered to break things down for you.

I think you forget or you do not know what you believe as you keep changing or disclaiming what you say you believe or do not believe

 

[3rdAngel]

My prediction is that he will not allow himself to understand this.

My prediction is you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God and the existence of God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope." I do not believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of God.

Questioner: So if you do not believe in God where is your evidence?

Wait a second. Why would the questioner ask such a stupid question? One does not need evidence not to believe in something. Are you implying that the questioner is not that bright?

Subduction Zone: I have none

Questioner: So if you have no evidence for your belief than your belief is based on faith?

Okay, and the questioner asks another stupid question

Subduction Zone: Humm Nope I did not say that

Hey! You got that right. No evidence is needed for a lack of belief. Especially when no evidence to the contrary has been given.

In the case of no evidence for a belief the proper response is non-belief

 

[Ayjaydee]

Google a deinition of Athiesm if you do not know what it means Ayjay . Here let me help you, feel free to click on any of the following links...

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Encyclopedia Britannica
3. Encyclopedia of Philisophy
4. Merriam Webster dictionary
5. Cambridge Dictionary
6. Dictionary.com
7. International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia
8. Wiki
9. Your Dictionary
10. Someone who believes in Atheism...........?
Merriam Webster dictionary

Hope this helps

Didnt think you could. Carry on

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you forget or you do not know what you believe as you keep changing or disclaiming what you say you believe or do not believe

Nope, you merely cannot follow logical thought. Don't blame others for your sins.

 

[3rdAngel]

Didnt think you could. Carry on

Carry on what. Do you know what an athiest is now Ayjay?

 

[3rdAngel]

Nope, you merely cannot follow logical thought. Don't blame others for your sins.

Yet here you are not knowing what you believe or what you post

 

[Ayjaydee]

Carry on what. Do you know what an athiest is now Ayjay?

Not your business, carry on

 

[3rdAngel]

Wait a second. Why would the questioner ask such a stupid question? One does not need evidence not to believe in something. Are you implying that the questioner is not that bright? Okay, and the questioner asks another stupid question
Hey! You got that right. No evidence is needed for a lack of belief. Especially when no evidence to the contrary has been given. In the case of no evidence for a belief the proper response is non-belief

Indeed but you claim there is no God and God does not exist. That is your faith for which you have no evidence.