Chemical reaction my butt

This is why it's pointless to argue and try to debate or reason with these kinds of people. They just keep repeating the same, tired arguments and are thick headed.

"LOL IF NO GOD WERE WE COME FROM?"

"LOL IF NO GOD HOW UNIVERSE BEGIN?"

They're simple minded people that can't accept there are things we don't understand. Also, inb4 some moron comes and says "LOL YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GOD HYPOCRITE" There is a difference. God is illogical, and makes no sense.

What is to stop me from saying there is a demon living in my dresser that controls the world? You can't prove he doesn't exist, so he must. You just don't understand him. That's an illogical thing to so, and that is exactly what you say about God.

It's the same f*** argument.

Well Belth,
that's basically what happens when you argue with religious people as far as I can tell.
It's like I keep saying to people, there is no more reason for me to believe in God, than there is for me to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
Also, (in a vain attempt to move the argument forward) if God is real, he's a total bastard.

Sorry, 'chemical reaction my butt' was a bit premature.

However, the

"LOL IF NO GOD WERE WE COME FROM?"

"LOL IF NO GOD HOW UNIVERSE BEGIN?"

statements would be good arguments if they weren't so overused

And yet by saying 'There are things we don't understand.' you have basically answered the more left wing and unique questions that Tid asked (not an insult Tid, most questions I've received about Christianity I'd heard a million times before and the questions sprouted from someone else)


2 things however,

1. You know the flying spaghetti monster was made up and was designed to be a joke whereas the people who 'founded' Christianity (the apostles) didn't. They died for their beliefs and we have Christian and non-Christian sources that tell us this.
2. Why is God a bastard?

Well look.
I'm convinced this argument isn't going to go anywhere, and Belth obviously agrees.
So.
New standpoint.
If God is real, then why is he being such a douchebag to us?

Kierkegaard did not intend to reject rational evaluation of one's belief and neither do I. Nor was it his intention to reject reason altogether. His main point is that human reason is not sufficient to compel to belief in God, which was already pressed by Luther and Calvin.

Human reason is insufficient to proove God's existence, neither is it sufficient to demonstrate the truth of science as of yet.

In effect this means that although one can defend and justify faith using reason, one cannot convert someone only using reason (neither forceful nor gentle conversions only rely on reason (the forceful ones have also generally been recepted as invalid in more recent time, for obvious reasons)). This is in concordance with Protestant theology, which states that humans are unable to seek, find and believe in God by their own powers, but need God to take the initiative.

However, does that mean people are to reject reasonable scrutiny of their beliefs? Not at all, reasonable scrutiny during the Renaissance was one of the elements that led to the Reformation. It is also one of the foundations of theology, aside Scripture. Finally, it is mandated by Paul that we meticulously scrutinise our beliefs.

But that does not mean there are phenomena for which our reason is insufficient to make us comprehend. This has to do in the first place that human reason is not infallible.



Unicorns are supposed to be physical and they haven't been demonstrated to exist so far.

Of course we might create unicorns using genetic modification. Would that demonstrate God's existence?

Does that mean that proving that unicorns do not exist disprooves God's existence? I'd say consistency is to be valued here.

You can't prove anything doesn't exist. You can just say 'I've seen this, but I haven't seen this and it's likely that it doesn't from what I've seen, but, from a scientific point of view, you CAN NOT say that something cannot exist.

This is the same question as "What caused the Big Bang?" in essense, but I'll try to create some sort of clarity:

God's existence is metaphysical. This means we cannot test his existence, but we can neither attest the qualities of metaphysics itself, apart from being unable to demonstrate. That means that the notions of space, time and causality that are valid in our four-dimensional universe may not hold in higher dimensions. So it is possible for a metaphysical being to be separate in time, that is a different function of time.

This is accepted theology and philosophy since the time of Aristotle in general lines. (Unmoved Mover)

So what is to say the Big Bang should have a cause? However, the Big Bang is the start of our universe and our four-dimensional universe is subject to the causality we observe. If we are to reject causality, we are to reject physics, which means we should reject the Big Bang, which is a paradox. The solution is that although our universe needs a cause, that cause may not need a cause. Since the Big Bang is part of our universe, it needs a cause, but the metaphysical cause would not need one.

I'm sorry?
From a scientific point of view, hell, I can't say God doesn't exist, but I sure can say that everything points to it.

I was actually referring to the unicorns....

I enjoy life, I'm sure you do too, the fact that you find it enjoyable would mean that God has been good to you in the present life.

However, to cover the usual bases about why God doesn't deserve all the hate

1. God made a perfect world. When he made it, there was no pain or suffering
2. Humanity stuffed up. The devil tempted Adam and Eve to sin and as a result there is now pain and suffering and so forth as by sinning, we have separated ourselves from God
3. Jesus came so that we could be back in a relationship with him
4. Acknowledge and accept Jesus and Jesus accepts you, ignore Jesus and on judgement day, he will ignore you.

The reason that God hasn't already come is to give people who are born later a chance to know God. If he came now, his family would be smaller.

The reason that there is bad stuff is covered in '2' Don't forget that not only does bad stuff happen to us but we also do bad stuff.

Bad stuff happening to us could be seen as a form of personality training, discipline and so forth, sculpting us to be better people (I don't really go for that but it is a reason given)

I love you, too.

God is not illogical, nothing in logics demonstrates God cannot exist. His existence is thus an open possibility, but not a demonstrated truth.

Saying those positions are thick-headed is not intellectually integer. They are logically possible positions and there is a case for them to make. Just resorting to petty insults is not making your case strong.

As I have said in an earlier post, the difference is between physical or metaphysical existence.

No.
Um.
Nothing about that really explains the Black Death. Why did that come about?
Oh btw, AD is probably going to post something, is it okay if I just ignore him?

holy f*** you idiot. That was caused by fleas on rats, which carried teh bubonic plague.

Sorry Villrar, didn't see your post.
I'd actually say that logic does suggest God's non-existence.
Like you know, it's illogical to have an all-powerful being who is invisible who does all these nasty things to us even though he's apparently all loving.