Your best argument that god exists

[LuisDantas]

I can only assume you are kidding.

 

[Jumi]

There can only be 1 absolute God, it doesn't matter how you call him.

If you define it so.

Which enemies? As far as I know, whenever YHWH appeared, he has won against every other God.

He has appeared and other Gods also?

Azatoth is not absolute, he is blind and midless and there are other gods beside him. It doesn't even matter, because Lovecraft was a (genius) fiction writer, and he never claimed to be sent by God. If he made this claim, we would need to examine his writings, wether they live up to such a claim.

Yet some people take his writings seriously.

You forget, that people 2600 years ago were very stupid. How could God teach them the spirituality of the 21. century? God teaches as much, as people can bear at the moment.

The people were just as smart as they are today. They just didn't have as much understanding of natural science or engineering.

As humans we haven't progressed at all. If we took a newborn child with a time machine from ancient Ethiopia and taught him like today he would be just as smart as other kids.

Even though the old testament has much religious wisdom in it (that atheists don't look at, because it isn't emberassing like the genocides),

Ecclesiastes is nice.

the NT brings a clearer understanding of God, the Quran is a reminder, and more made for wild arabs. Baha'u'llahs writings are full of wisdom, and I can't think of any wisdom, that YHWH doesn't teach through Him. What religious wisdom, that YHWH failed to deliver, were you talking about exactly?

Sadly it doesn't seem to me more than writings of people.

 

[raph]

If you define it so.

I don't think, that any definition of an absolute being, allows another absolut being to exist beside Him.

He has appeared and other Gods also?

I don't know if other "gods" appeared. I can't rule out the possibility, that there are beings, much stronger than humans, that appear like God to us. YHWH has appeared multiple times in history. I was referencing the various situations in history where YHWH has won against other Gods. Like against Baal in the Bible, or against the pagan Gods of Rome and later arabia.

As humans we haven't progressed at all. If we took a newborn child with a time machine from ancient Ethiopia and taught him like today he would be just as smart as other kids.

Yet society has progressed. If you would go back with a time machine and told every one that monogamy is good and slavery bad, they wouldn't believe you. How do you know, that a newborn 2600 years ago, had the spiritual capacity of todays people?

Sadly it doesn't seem to me more than writings of people.

They are writings of people. People use the written language, everything that is written, is writings of people. We couldn't understand writings of God, because that wouldnt be writings of people. And we can only understand writings of people.

The question was, which spiritual wisdom YHWH failed to deliver? Do atheists actually believe in spiritual wisdom, or was that sarcasm, LuisDantas?

 

[Jumi]

I don't think, that any definition of an absolute being, allows another absolut being to exist beside Him.

We can define it being possible that multiple absolute beings exist or none. Definitions are a matter of opinion, we don't know if such exist.

I don't know if other "gods" appeared. I can't rule out the possibility, that there are beings, much stronger than humans, that appear like God to us. YHWH has appeared multiple times in history. I was referencing the various situations in history where YHWH has won against other Gods. Like against Baal in the Bible, or against the pagan Gods of Rome and later arabia.

Those were just the followers battling it out as to who gets to call their god the stronger one. It's like football matches where one team's name is above the others. They don't prove that there really was a "team spirit" or God behind them.

Yet society has progressed. If you would go back with a time machine and told every one that monogamy is good and slavery bad, they wouldn't believe you.

Monogamy isn't anything special. There's nothing that says having one wife or one husband is the best for everybody.

There are still people who believe in slavery around the world and there were people who freed slaves back in ancient times like Cyrus the Great.

History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

How do you know, that a newborn 2600 years ago, had the spiritual capacity of todays people?

From reading Philosophy of the time from Greece to China.

They are writings of people. People use the written language, everything that is written, is writings of people. We couldn't understand writings of God, because that wouldnt be writings of people. And we can only understand writings of people.

But people's wisdom or lack thereof is not proof that gods are behind them?

 

[kepha31]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Jesus the Christ is God, evidenced by the Resurrection and the rise of the Church that followed It. Arguments opposed to the Resurrection have proven to be stupid, or weak at best.
The myth theory is just that: a theory, and it doesn't hold water. Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history.

 

[McBell]

Jesus the Christ is God, evidenced by the Resurrection and the rise of the Church that followed It.

Bold empty claim

Arguments opposed to the Resurrection have proven to be stupid, or weak at best.

Bold empty claim

The myth theory is just that: a theory, and it doesn't hold water.

yet there is loads more evidence for it than your bold empty claims....

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑

I don't agree with you.

The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don't have to.

But with a good imagination you can place any attributes onto it, it means nothing, well at least not a god.

One attribute of G-d is mentioned in Quran (the secure and pristine Word of G-d) as Ahad one meaning of which is unique. Most (some may say that all ) big objects in the Universe (the Work of G-d) are round in shape or or tend to be round or a circle expressing in a way that as to Who have shaped them.

The Work of G-d and the Word of G-d thus correspond with one another.

Such are the attributes of G-d uniquely manifested in the Converse and the nature.

Is imitation of the same possible? I don't think so.

Regards

 

[McBell]

Who are you to judge?

Well, it is his signature....

 

[Jumi]

Strawmen rarely make sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Strawmen rarely make sense.

So true, but they make good kindle.

 

[Skwim]

Simple as that.
Identify your god and convince us that it exists.

Jesus the Christ is God, evidenced by the Resurrection and the rise of the Church that followed It. Arguments opposed to the Resurrection have proven to be stupid, or weak at best.
The myth theory is just that: a theory, and it doesn't hold water. Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history.

Well, you get an A on the "Identify" part , but an F on the "convince us that it exists" part.

 

[kepha31]

Bold empty claim
Bold empty claim
yet there is loads more evidence for it than your bold empty claims....

Your reply is a bold thoughtless empty claim.

Strawmen rarely make sense.

If my signature is false, then provide the theories that explain how physical matter came into being that avoid the magical superpowers of the almighty atom, or, Deo-Atomism. Your "strawman" reply is a strawman in itself.

Well, you get an A on the "Identify" part , but an F on the "convince us that it exists" part.

I don't make statements that I cannot substantiate. What these three quotes prove is that atheists (if they are atheists, I am not sure) refuse, or are incapable, of dialogue.

Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. If the same criteria is used to disprove Christ's resurrection on any ancient event, then the science of history is reduced to rhetoric, and not facts. And we wouldn't have much history at all.

I keep reading in this forum that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection are simply myths, much like the stories we find among the Greeks and the Norse. But here are six reasons the "myth" theory does not hold:

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here.

Psychological depth is at a maximum. In myth it is at a minimum. In myth, such spectacular external events happen that it would be distracting to add much internal depth of character. That is why it is ordinary people like Alice who are the protagonists of extra-ordinary adventures like Wonderland. That character depth and development of everyone in the Gospels—especially, of course, Jesus himself—is remarkable. It is also done with an incredible economy of words. Myths are verbose; the Gospels are concise.

There are also telltale marks of eyewitness description, like the little detail of Jesus writing in the sand when asked whether to stone the adulteress or not (Jn 8:6). No one knows why this is put in; nothing comes of it. The only explanation is that the writer saw it. If this detail and others like it throughout all four Gospels were invented, then a first-century tax collector (Matthew), a "young man" (Mark), a doctor (Luke), and a fisherman (John) all independently invented the new genre of realistic fantasy nineteen centuries before it was reinvented in the twentieth.

The so-called Gospel of Peter, a forgery from around A.D. 125 which John Dominic Crossan (of the "Jesus Seminar"), insists is earlier than the four Gospels. But the literary style is clearly mythical. Much the same with Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D. 250 by Flavius Philostratus. Another literary style that is clearly mythical. There is no comparison with the Gospels. There is no denying that myths were written, but it is fallacious to claim that for that reason, the Gospels are also myths. The facts don't add up to that conclusion.

"...The point is that this is what you get when the imagination goes to work. Once the boundaries of fact are crossed we wander into fairyland. And very nice too, for amusement or recreation. But the Gospels are set firmly in the real Palestine of the first century, and the little details are not picturesque inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic novelist can give." (Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.
We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu, and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.
The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward.
"no first-century textual evidence that Christianity began with a divine and resurrected Christ, not a human and dead one" is invented by myth theorists, passed off as fact by present day gods of knowledge.

Some scholars still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. There is not even one generation. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

Here is a challenge for the modern day "scholarly" myth cult: produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death.

gleaned from, with editing: Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True | Strange Notions

 

[Skwim]

I don't make statements that I cannot substantiate. What these three quotes prove is that atheists (if they are atheists, I am not sure) refuse, or are incapable, of dialogue.

Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. If the same criteria is used to disprove Christ's resurrection on any ancient event, then the science of history is reduced to rhetoric, and not facts. And we wouldn't have much history at all.

I keep reading in this forum that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection are simply myths, much like the stories we find among the Greeks and the Norse. But here are six reasons the "myth" theory does not hold:

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here.

Psychological depth is at a maximum. In myth it is at a minimum. In myth, such spectacular external events happen that it would be distracting to add much internal depth of character. That is why it is ordinary people like Alice who are the protagonists of extra-ordinary adventures like Wonderland. That character depth and development of everyone in the Gospels—especially, of course, Jesus himself—is remarkable. It is also done with an incredible economy of words. Myths are verbose; the Gospels are concise.

There are also telltale marks of eyewitness description, like the little detail of Jesus writing in the sand when asked whether to stone the adulteress or not (Jn 8:6). No one knows why this is put in; nothing comes of it. The only explanation is that the writer saw it. If this detail and others like it throughout all four Gospels were invented, then a first-century tax collector (Matthew), a "young man" (Mark), a doctor (Luke), and a fisherman (John) all independently invented the new genre of realistic fantasy nineteen centuries before it was reinvented in the twentieth.

The so-called Gospel of Peter, a forgery from around A.D. 125 which John Dominic Crossan (of the "Jesus Seminar"), insists is earlier than the four Gospels. But the literary style is clearly mythical. Much the same with Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D. 250 by Flavius Philostratus. Another literary style that is clearly mythical. There is no comparison with the Gospels. There is no denying that myths were written, but it is fallacious to claim that for that reason, the Gospels are also myths. The facts don't add up to that conclusion.

"...The point is that this is what you get when the imagination goes to work. Once the boundaries of fact are crossed we wander into fairyland. And very nice too, for amusement or recreation. But the Gospels are set firmly in the real Palestine of the first century, and the little details are not picturesque inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic novelist can give." (Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.
We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu, and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.
The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward.
"no first-century textual evidence that Christianity began with a divine and resurrected Christ, not a human and dead one" is invented by myth theorists, passed off as fact by present day gods of knowledge.

Some scholars still dispute the first-century date for the Gospels, especially John's. But no one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. There is not even one generation. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

Here is a challenge for the modern day "scholarly" myth cult: produce a single example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that figure's death.

gleaned from, with editing: Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True | Strange Notions

Are you really claiming that because Jesus was resurrected it makes him god? Is there someplace where it's written, "Whosoever shall be resurrected is god"?

 

[Jumi]

If my signature is false, then provide the theories that explain how physical matter came into being that avoid the magical superpowers of the almighty atom, or, Deo-Atomism. Your "strawman" reply is a strawman in itself.

How is it a strawman to call something as it is? You could also call it a joke if you wish.

Explanation of how physical matter came into being if it ever did is not of interest to me or many atheists. If you could explain to me satisfactorily how your God came into being and avoid the magical superpowers of creating matter from nothing? I personally think matter always existed. Even before Big Bang.

Deo-Atomism sounds like someone's being digging into Communist theories of the 19th and early 20th century and misunderstood that to be a modern day thing or something non-Communists would even understand. It's purely a strawman. Like I said earlier, his article is silly. He thinks a godless universe means atheists have A God then goes on to think that atheists have billions of gods. He's just making it up as he goes along. It's nothing to do with reality.

 

[McBell]

Your reply is a bold thoughtless empty claim.

Yet another bold empty claim.

Sad that all you have to offer up is bold empty claims and logical fallacies.

It is as if you do not want to be taken seriously.

If my signature is false, then provide the theories that explain how physical matter came into being that avoid the magical superpowers of the almighty atom, or, Deo-Atomism. Your "strawman" reply is a strawman in itself.

Nice try.
The onus is on you, not anyone else.

 

[kepha31]

How is it a strawman to call something as it is? You could also call it a joke if you wish.

Explanation of how physical matter came into being if it ever did is not of interest to me or many atheists.

Of course it doesn't. The origins of the existence of physical matter prove the existence of God. That is why it is of no interest because atheists have no reasonable explanation of where everything came from, or for what purpose, so the question is conveniently avoided.

If you could explain to me satisfactorily how your God came into being and avoid the magical superpowers of creating matter from nothing?

If God "came into being", then he would not be God but another item in the universe. No, this is the god invented by atheists and I don't buy it either. I think the best explanation for the existence of God was written 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas and it is still being debated. A satisfactory explanation can't be given, (which doesn't mean it's not there) you have to look for it. What I can do is post little jewels of philosophical thought that punches holes in the atheist paradigm.

Anselm defined God as "that which nothing greater than can be conceived." He ended all of his arguments by saying "this thing we call God," as a means of keeping the exact nature of God open-ended. This is because God is beyond our understanding, as the Bible says, but we can leave a "place marker" for the concept of God by understanding that the ultimate logical function of the God concept is that of the transcendental signifier.

One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of "The Ground of Being." This concept indicates not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.

The phrases "Ground of Being" and "Being itself" are basically the same concept. Tillich used both at different times, and other theologians such as John McQuarrey prefer "Being Itself," but they really speak to the same concept. Now skeptics are always asking "how can god be being?" I think this question comes from the fact that the term is misleading. The term "Being itself" gives one the impression that God is the actual fact of "my existence," or the existence of my flowerbed, or any object one might care to name. Paul Tillich, on the other hand, said explicitly (in Systematic Theology Vol. I) that this does not refer to an existential fact but to an ontological status. What is being said is not that God is the fact of the being of some particular object, but, that he is the basis upon which being proceeds and upon which objects participate in being. In other words, since God exists forever, nothing else can come to be without God's will or thought; and since there can't even be a potential for any being without God's thought, all potentialities for being arise in the "mind of God" then in that sense God is actually "Being Itself." I think "Ground of Being" is a less confusing term. God is the ground upon which all being is based and from which all being proceeds.
Being:sub sub menu on topic of Being itself
​

I personally think matter always existed. Even before Big Bang.

Sure, matter turned into life all on its own power, a deification of matter. Sorry, but atoms, or matter, simply is not that smart to "evolve" into life all by themselves. It's atom/matter worship no matter how you slice it. No scientist or cosmologist accepts that "matter always existed", because it is a metaphysical statement. You can make a metaphysical statement but Christians can't? Another double standard.

Deo-Atomism sounds like someone's being digging into Communist theories of the 19th and early 20th century and misunderstood that to be a modern day thing or something non-Communists would even understand. It's purely a strawman.
Like I said earlier, his article is silly. He thinks a godless universe means atheists have A God

No, he doesn't. He proves atheism is pantheism in its purest form. Quote where he says atheists have "A God". http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html

then goes on to think that atheists have billions of gods.

You miss the point. It's a satire, not a straw man. My annoying signature is a satire on the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.
The atheist has to believe that atoms have creative powers to form matter which formed into life all by themselves. (which I don't think is unreasonable, given the atheists presuppositions) It takes a lot of blind gullible faith to believe this. It IS pantheism.

He's just making it up as he goes along. It's nothing to do with reality.

But it does. It is an excellent refutation of atheism and its foolishness, using satire as a literary device. Even Outhouse can't refute it, and he doesn't like it either.
http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html

 

[McBell]

The origins of the existence of physical matter prove the existence of God.

Source please.

That is why it is of no interest because atheists have no reasonable explanation of where everything came from, or for what purpose, so the question is conveniently avoided.

So you are going to go with the "god of the gaps"?

I understand that most theists are not comfortable admitting they do not know so they stuff god in as the answer.
Is that what you are doing?

If God "came into being", then he would not be God but another item in the universe.

See.
Stuffing god into the gap doe snothing more than generate more questions you cannot answer....

No, this is the god invented by atheists and I don't buy it either. I think the best explanation for the existence of God was written 800 years ago by Thomas Aquinas and it is still being debated. A satisfactory explanation can't be given, (which doesn't mean it's not there) you have to look for it. What I can do is post little jewels of philosophical thought that punches holes in the atheist paradigm.

Anselm defined God as "that which nothing greater than can be conceived." He ended all of his arguments by saying "this thing we call God," as a means of keeping the exact nature of God open-ended. This is because God is beyond our understanding, as the Bible says, but we can leave a "place marker" for the concept of God by understanding that the ultimate logical function of the God concept is that of the transcendental signifier.

One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of "The Ground of Being." This concept indicates not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.

The phrases "Ground of Being" and "Being itself" are basically the same concept. Tillich used both at different times, and other theologians such as John McQuarrey prefer "Being Itself," but they really speak to the same concept. Now skeptics are always asking "how can god be being?" I think this question comes from the fact that the term is misleading. The term "Being itself" gives one the impression that God is the actual fact of "my existence," or the existence of my flowerbed, or any object one might care to name. Paul Tillich, on the other hand, said explicitly (in Systematic Theology Vol. I) that this does not refer to an existential fact but to an ontological status. What is being said is not that God is the fact of the being of some particular object, but, that he is the basis upon which being proceeds and upon which objects participate in being. In other words, since God exists forever, nothing else can come to be without God's will or thought; and since there can't even be a potential for any being without God's thought, all potentialities for being arise in the "mind of God" then in that sense God is actually "Being Itself." I think "Ground of Being" is a less confusing term. God is the ground upon which all being is based and from which all being proceeds.
Being:sub sub menu on topic of Being itself
​

Ah yes, the most common defense for the god of the gaps.

Sure, matter turned into life all on its own power, a deification of matter. Sorry, but atoms, or matter, simply is not that smart to "evolve" into life all by themselves. It's atom/matter worship no matter how you slice it. No scientist or cosmologist accepts that "matter always existed", because it is a metaphysical statement. You can make a metaphysical statement but Christians can't? Another double standard.

Source please.

No, he doesn't. He proves atheism is pantheism in its purest form. Quote where he says atheists have "A God". http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html

You miss the point. It's a satire, not a straw man. My annoying signature is a satire on the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.
The atheist has to believe that atoms have creative powers to form matter which formed into life all by themselves. (which I don't think is unreasonable, given the atheists presuppositions) It takes a lot of blind gullible faith to believe this. It IS pantheism. But it does. It is an excellent refutation of atheism and its foolishness, using satire as a literary device. Even Outhouse can't refute it, and he doesn't like it either.
http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html

Call it satire all you want.
It is still either a strawman or a blatant lie.

 

[Jumi]

The origins of the existence of physical matter prove the existence of God.

Of course it doesn't. Where is the proof? It's non-existent.

That is why it is of no interest because atheists have no reasonable explanation of where everything came from, or for what purpose, so the question is conveniently avoided.

You just hope it had to come from somewhere. Perhaps that's the thing your faith is based on. For me it's of not important if it came from somewhere or if it existed forever in some form.

If God "came into being", then he would not be God but another item in the universe. No, this is the god invented by atheists and I don't buy it either.

So why do you think matter existing for all eternity is different from God existing for all eternity? "If something exists, it had to come from somewhere" that's your thinking, not mine. So why do you insist this is an atheist invention?

One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of "The Ground of Being." This concept indicates not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things.

The theologians you consider great go to pantheism for definition instead of monotheistic faith in other words.

God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.

Yes, I like this one. It's similar to how I got into pantheism. It still doesn't make me believe in a creator.

Sure, matter turned into life all on its own power, a deification of matter. Sorry, but atoms, or matter, simply is not that smart to "evolve" into life all by themselves.

How can you be sure? How much chemistry do you know, especially organic chemistry?

It's atom/matter worship no matter how you slice it.

Only if worship means nothing. I worshiped my tea this morning and worshiped it with porridge on other days then, I guess...

You can make a metaphysical statement but Christians can't? Another double standard.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said you can't make a statement.

No, he doesn't. He proves atheism is pantheism in its purest form. Quote where he says atheists have "A God". Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")

Why does he then talk of polytheism and no gods existing. He seems very confused. Perhaps it's his anger coming through.

You miss the point. It's a satire, not a straw man. My annoying signature is a satire on the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.

It's not annoying. Looks more like you have a problem understanding what it's about since it's so different from your beliefs.

The atheist has to believe that atoms have creative powers to form matter which formed into life all by themselves.

The only thing an atheist has to believe is that he does not believe in gods.

It takes a lot of blind gullible faith to believe this.

How much more gullible blind faith does it take to add extra things into the equation?

It IS pantheism. But it does. It is an excellent refutation of atheism and its foolishness, using satire as a literary device. Even Outhouse can't refute it, and he doesn't like it either.
http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html

The article is ridiculous. And as a pantheist I disagree with his logic.

 

[kepha31]

Of course it doesn't. Where is the proof? It's non-existent.

God is the creator of all things. Jesus is God by virtue of his Resurrection (among other things), not as criteria, as Skwim erroneously suggested.
The popular myth theory, invented in the 19th century, is a lie and I have only described 2 out of 6 reasons why it is a lie. Either Jesus is totally insane followed around by a sophisticated special effects crew, or He is the Son of God. The evidence in favor of the latter is overwhelming, and you have the freedom to remain in the dark and ignore the hard facts.

So why do you think matter existing for all eternity is different from God existing for all eternity? "If something exists, it had to come from somewhere" that's your thinking, not mine. So why do you insist this is an atheist invention?

"matter existing for all eternity" is a metaphysical opinion not supported by cosmologists and most atheists could care less. "God existing for all eternity" is a theological statement that is far more reasonable than your unscientific opinion.

The theologians you consider great go to pantheism for definition instead of monotheistic faith in other words.

Which ones? Quote, please.

Yes, I like this one. It's similar to how I got into pantheism. It still doesn't make me believe in a creator.

You have the freedom to believe whatever you want.
How you get pantheism out of Transcendent Signifyer or Ground of Being is anybody's guess. Being:sub sub menu on topic of Being itself

How can you be sure? How much chemistry do you know, especially organic chemistry?

Organic chemistry is a chemistry subdiscipline involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW ATOMS ARRANGED THEMSELVES INTO ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BY THEMSELVES. The answer can only be a metaphysical answer. Evolution is the science of the fossil record, nothing more, so that is not the answer either. Physical matter is simply not smart enough to evolve into organic compounds without some Outside help, or Initial Intervention that would allow it to happen over billions of years.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said you can't make a statement.

Sorry. What I meant was metaphysical or philosophical arguments for the existence of God are valid arguments. Atheists smugly think there aren't any.

I'll make it again. God exists. Jesus is God. He rose from the dead. There is sufficient evidence of this event, as there is with any historical figure, even without the Bible. The legacy of this event has continued for 2000 years. The Resurrection has extended through time in various forms, but I will discuss that after I demolish the myth theory.

The only thing an atheist has to believe is that he does not believe in gods.

The atheist tends towards relativism, and it gets very scary when it enters the political arena.

The article is ridiculous. And as a pantheist I disagree with his logic.

It's a satire, it's supposed to be ridiculous, but no one can refute it with any intellectual rigor, just mindless one liners. It's no more ridiculous than atheism.
.
.

 

[kepha31]

Source please.

God is the source of all things.

So you are going to go with the "god of the gaps"?

I understand that most theists are not comfortable admitting they do not know so they stuff god in as the answer.
Is that what you are doing?

As a theist, I KNOW God created everything out of nothing, which makes more sense than the atheist who doesn't care. I never heard of "god of the gaps". Is that some new atheist buzz word?

See.
Stuffing god into the gap doe snothing more than generate more questions you cannot answer....

If God "came into being", then he would not be God but another item in the universe. What this statement does is dismantle your preconceived notions of a god that I don't accept either. But I don't see you asking any questions, yet you accuse me of generating questions I can't answer. This is a good example of why debating with some atheists is so pointless.

Ah yes, the most common defense for the god of the gaps.

Thomas Aquinas is nothing to be afraid of. "god of the gaps" as you put it means you haven't read any of his work, or have read biased critiques from secular atheist professors.

Source please.

20th WCP: The Origin of the Universe and Contemporary Cosmology and Philosophy
Atheism Hits a Brick Wall; The First Law of Thermodynamics
Scientists Abandon the Oscillating Universe Theory