Atheists pose NO intellectual threat to God

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 04 2010,10:02)

I did not think that I would have to spell this out for you, but you have already conceded that “all positions [are] ludicrous” and further that “the truth has to be ludicrous because it will be so far removed from our everyday experience of life”. Yet, you ridicule Stu for taking a ludicrous position concerning the beginning of our universe while you openly embrace your own ludicrous position. Don't you think that this is all a bit ludicrous? The only thing that separates your position and Stu's is evidence, which leads me to … .

It leads to either everything coming from someone, something, or nothing.

If there was nothing there would be nothing now.
If there was something it would have to be an eternal something otherwise it would be preceded by nothing. It also has the IQ of zero and yet came up with all this brilliant design that not even the best intellects can understand, never mind replicate.
That leaves a creator. And everything is explained easily with the creator option.

This is the type of evidence that many ignore including Stu and perhaps yourself?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 04 2010,10:02)

Here is a simple question: Can you prove that fairies do not exist?  Yes or no? (If you answer “Yes”, please summarize your case.)

There is very good and plentiful evidence that there is a creator. There is no evidence or reason for fairies existence.
They are not in the same ball park.

It is similar to saying that there is good evidence and reason for black holes in the universe and no evidence or reason for giant blob of marshmallow moving through our galaxy.
Again, not in the same ball park.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:13)

Atheist arguments are all the first cause. At that stage it is too late to argue for or against God. Therefore they have no evidence at all to the cause.

What cause? Why is a cause necessary? Your only answer to that question in regards to your god has been to name it as the religious platitude called “eternity”.

I have never heard of an atheist trying to tell a theist that the Big Bang is based on physical “eternity”. On the whole atheists acknowledge their agnosticism and are generally honest about what they can and cannot know.

So t8, why does your god not have to have a cause, whereas the universe must? Can you answer that without using the platitude “eternity”? Or perhaps you can explain what eternity means, without a further exercise in just naming religious platitudes. Do you have more than just a set of Russian dolls of nonsense religious sentiments that mean nothing?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 04 2010,10:02)

Testimony? Is that the extent of your evidence? If so, you should really change the title of this thread to “Atheists pose no threat to my subjective experiences!”. I don't know if you know this, but there are people who come to this forum all the time with testimonies, and they all radically differ on questions of god. For example, the resident Muslim here claims to have healed people. Are you doing a thorough investigation of Islam as a result? If you really want to get into the intellectual game, you need an actual falsifiable theory on how God created the universe, and then you would need to point to the evidence that satisfies that theory in contradiction of all other competing theories. Do you have anything like that?

It is certainly true that you cannot know anything until you experience it. Well that goes for most things.

If I was blind from birth, then how would I know what blue looks like. And of course scripture plainly states that people can be blind to God.

So I agree with your post.

In addition to that, people say all kinds of things that they might have experienced that are not true. Sometimes people believe something so much that they just make it truth and point all evidence to their way of seeing things.

So yes we have experience and that is what makes the difference. However, as far as the idea of a creator. It is the only viable explanation, and thus it is correctly written that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. This was written because it is true. If you deny God, then you are left only with everything coming from nothing which is impossible or something eternal with no conscious or IQ producing a complex and wonderful universe.

So about the evidence part, I just say to you that common sense is overlooked by Atheists.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:27)

What cause? Why is a cause necessary?

If there was no cause, then it all came from nothing.

That is silly. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now.

Explain how nothing can do anything?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:29)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:27) What cause?  Why is a cause necessary? If there was no cause, then it all came from nothing. That is silly. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. Explain how nothing can do anything?

That is just rhetoric on your part. What does it mean to say nothing has done something? You are just repeating the logical fallacy of conflating a suggested concrete meaning of a word with its abstract meaning.

Why MUST the universe have a cause? Why can there not be uncaused things? You are very keen on that when it comes to your god. I am completely happy with the idea that your god could be uncaused, although it is an hypothetical question with no theory to support it, but you appear not to be able to cope when others suggest to you that other events could be uncaused. Don't forget we have discussed the temporal nature of cause and effect as used by our minds, and you are trying to maintain “cause” in a situation where time did not exist.

Any answers t8, or just replaying the old broken tracks from the album Golden Religious Platitudes of Yesteryear? We can hear the dust in the grooves of your arguments crackling away in the background. If you play your broken LPs backwards I think you can make out the phrase “No Arguments At All”.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:19)

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 04 2010,10:02) I did not think that I would have to spell this out for you, but you have already conceded that “all positions [are] ludicrous” and further that “the truth has to be ludicrous because it will be so far removed from our everyday experience of life”.  Yet, you ridicule Stu for taking a ludicrous position concerning the beginning of our universe while you openly embrace your own ludicrous position.  Don't you think that this is all a bit ludicrous? The only thing that separates your position and Stu's is evidence, which leads me to … . It leads to either everything coming from someone, something, or nothing. If there was nothing there would be nothing now. If there was something it would have to be an eternal something otherwise it would be preceded by nothing. It also has the IQ of zero and yet came up with all this brilliant design that not even the best intellects can understand, never mind replicate. That leaves a creator. And everything is explained easily with the creator option. This is the type of evidence that many ignore including Stu and perhaps yourself?

Hi T8,

Most things come from both someone and something.
Nothing into something requires a magician.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:37)

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:29) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:27) What cause?  Why is a cause necessary? If there was no cause, then it all came from nothing. That is silly. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. Explain how nothing can do anything? That is just rhetoric on your part.  What does it mean to say nothing has done something?  You are just repeating the logical fallacy of conflating a suggested concrete meaning of a word with its abstract meaning. Why MUST the universe have a cause?  Why can there not be uncaused things?  You are very keen on that when it comes to your god.  I am completely happy with the idea that your god could be uncaused, although it is an hypothetical question with no theory to support it, but you appear not to be able to cope when others suggest to you that other events could be uncaused.  Don't forget we have discussed the temporal nature of cause and effect as used by our minds, and you are trying to maintain “cause” in a situation where time did not exist. Any answers t8, or just replaying the old broken tracks from the album Golden Religious Platitudes of Yesteryear?  We can hear the dust in the grooves of your arguments crackling away in the background.  If you play your broken LPs backwards I think you can make out the phrase “No Arguments At All”. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You keep offering a dichotomy as truth?

You say: If I(Stuart) could be wrong, why can't you?
Why: is because we come from the standpoint of knowing!

You admit that you don't know! Yet you try to convince others
of something that you are not sure of yourself. Is this not insanity?

Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:44)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:37) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:29) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:27) What cause?  Why is a cause necessary? If there was no cause, then it all came from nothing. That is silly. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. Explain how nothing can do anything? That is just rhetoric on your part.  What does it mean to say nothing has done something?  You are just repeating the logical fallacy of conflating a suggested concrete meaning of a word with its abstract meaning. Why MUST the universe have a cause?  Why can there not be uncaused things?  You are very keen on that when it comes to your god.  I am completely happy with the idea that your god could be uncaused, although it is an hypothetical question with no theory to support it, but you appear not to be able to cope when others suggest to you that other events could be uncaused.  Don't forget we have discussed the temporal nature of cause and effect as used by our minds, and you are trying to maintain “cause” in a situation where time did not exist. Any answers t8, or just replaying the old broken tracks from the album Golden Religious Platitudes of Yesteryear?  We can hear the dust in the grooves of your arguments crackling away in the background.  If you play your broken LPs backwards I think you can make out the phrase “No Arguments At All”. Stuart Hi Stuart, You keep offering a dichotomy as truth? You say: If I(Stuart) could be wrong, why can't you? Why: is because we come from the standpoint of knowing! You admit that you don't know! Yet you try to convince others of something that you are not sure of yourself. Is this not insanity? Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH! יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)

You come from the standpoint of claiming to know what others cannot.

I claim only to know that which I can show you to be true.

I challenge you to show that there is a god. You cannot.

Your bluff has been called.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,14:52)

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:44) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:37) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2010,07:29) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,07:27) What cause?  Why is a cause necessary? If there was no cause, then it all came from nothing. That is silly. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. Explain how nothing can do anything? That is just rhetoric on your part.  What does it mean to say nothing has done something?  You are just repeating the logical fallacy of conflating a suggested concrete meaning of a word with its abstract meaning. Why MUST the universe have a cause?  Why can there not be uncaused things?  You are very keen on that when it comes to your god.  I am completely happy with the idea that your god could be uncaused, although it is an hypothetical question with no theory to support it, but you appear not to be able to cope when others suggest to you that other events could be uncaused.  Don't forget we have discussed the temporal nature of cause and effect as used by our minds, and you are trying to maintain “cause” in a situation where time did not exist. Any answers t8, or just replaying the old broken tracks from the album Golden Religious Platitudes of Yesteryear?  We can hear the dust in the grooves of your arguments crackling away in the background.  If you play your broken LPs backwards I think you can make out the phrase “No Arguments At All”. Stuart Hi Stuart, You keep offering a dichotomy as truth? You say: If I(Stuart) could be wrong, why can't you? Why: is because we come from the standpoint of knowing! You admit that you don't know! Yet you try to convince others of something that you are not sure of yourself. Is this not insanity? Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH! יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16) You come from the standpoint of claiming to know what others cannot. I claim only to know that which I can show you to be true. I challenge you to show that there is a god.  You cannot. Your bluff has been called. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here)
The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye?

Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59)

Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

You have not shown there is a god.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05)

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59) Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org You have not shown there is a God. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Are you atheist or Agnostic?
I illustrated to you it's an “Intelligent Design”.
A design requires a designer, and the grand architect is YHVH!
Pretty simple! A man of Science would consider new evidence or discoveries!

An Agnostic would certainly want to know whether God exists or not.
Only an atheist would strive to discredit any information regarding God's existence.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,16:23)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59) Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org You have not shown there is a God. Stuart Hi Stuart, Are you atheist or Agnostic? I illustrated to you it's an “Intelligent Design”. A design requires a designer, and the grand architect is YHVH! Pretty simple! A man of Science would consider new evidence or discoveries! An Agnostic would certainly want to know whether God exists or not. Only an atheist would strive to discredit any information regarding God's existence. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

An agnostic believe it is not possible to know whether gods exist or not. You would have to show him that it is possible to know whether gods exist before attempting to do the showing bit.

However, you have not showed there is a god.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:46)

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,16:23) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59) Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org You have not shown there is a God. Stuart Hi Stuart, Are you atheist or Agnostic? I illustrated to you it's an “Intelligent Design”. A design requires a designer, and the grand architect is YHVH! Pretty simple! A man of Science would consider new evidence or discoveries! An Agnostic would certainly want to know whether God exists or not. Only an atheist would strive to discredit any information regarding God's existence. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org An agnostic believe it is not possible to know whether gods exist or not.  You would have to show him that it is possible to know whether gods exist before attempting to do the showing bit. However, you have not showed there is a god. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You present 'faulty logic'. Faulty logic from a faulty belief (atheism)!

That's like saying I must first convince you a car exists,
before I can show you the evidence of a “Burn Out”.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,17:27)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:46) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,16:23) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59) Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org You have not shown there is a God. Stuart Hi Stuart, Are you atheist or Agnostic? I illustrated to you it's an “Intelligent Design”. A design requires a designer, and the grand architect is YHVH! Pretty simple! A man of Science would consider new evidence or discoveries! An Agnostic would certainly want to know whether God exists or not. Only an atheist would strive to discredit any information regarding God's existence. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org An agnostic believe it is not possible to know whether gods exist or not.  You would have to show him that it is possible to know whether gods exist before attempting to do the showing bit. However, you have not showed there is a god. Stuart Hi Stuart, You present 'faulty logic'. Faulty logic from a faulty belief (atheism)! That's like saying I must first convince you a car exists, before I can show you the evidence of a “Burn Out”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Correct analogy.

You have not shown that any god exists.

Stuart

[princess of the king]

Quote

Correct analogy. You have not shown that any god exists. Stuart

Even this to be the case Stuart, as science continues to study the universe new subjects are always found that no one knew existed or imagined. Science has a faith of sort, to believe what is not seen, at the same time having faith it is there.

Same concept Stuart, different subject matter.

You don't believe that a divine creator does not exist, as I believe that science will not cure the common cold.

Dear fellow, what you miss in such things. You would be one to persecute Newton for his ideas.

Hope all is well with you Stuart and the ones you love as well.

Take care.

[Stu]

Quote (princess of the king @ Nov. 14 2010,22:44)

Quote Correct analogy. You have not shown that any god exists. Stuart Even this to be the case Stuart, as science continues to study the universe new subjects are always found that no one knew existed or imagined. Science has a faith of sort, to believe what is not seen, at the same time having faith it is there. Same concept Stuart, different subject matter. You don't believe that a divine creator does not exist, as I believe that science will not cure the common cold. Dear fellow, what you miss in such things. You would be one to persecute Newton for his ideas. Hope all is well with you Stuart and the ones you love as well. Take care.

I disagree with you on every point, I'm afraid.

Science takes no faith position on anything.

I would have a go at Newton for his belief in Imaginary Friends, certainly.

What are you saying I am missing? Can you show me there is a god or are you in the same agnostic situation as Ed, and every theologian who ever lived?

Stuart

[princess of the king]

Dear friend, ever notice how you get a chip on your shoulder when you carry on conversation with ones that force feed you. Your defense goes up and it is back to square one. You go back to the little box of thinking and do not expand your thought process.

Universally you have faith in science, your beliefs stem on the facts of science. You believe the same as a christian does, different subject matter. There is not much difference Stuart.

How much more do you think Newton could have achieved in science if it were not for ones like you that debunked his belief in a creator, for that matter any great mind of science.

Ben Franklin's 13 words of meditation should be thrown out also, due to the last mentions faith.

So your bottom line thinking is anyone who believes in science cannot believe in a creator, strange thought process.

Can you prove to me that there is not a creator?

I have read what you write, even though your knowledge is in science, you still to this day as yet to explain how everything fits so perfect, the big bang is a no in my book, evolution yeah, understand does not really give the answers, natural selection okay, pysch 101 how does that make you feel, been there.

Really Stuart, you just pull your information from a different book. You even have a hard time with any text that reflects good in life. You miss a lot when looking through a microscope all the time, the little things in life are the most precious to me. Just my thoughts.

In all your knowledge you may want to look up etiquette, and respond, thank you princess all is well with myself, hope to find you the same.

However, science may disapprove of such matters due to no data has been gathered to really see if such things are important.

[TimothyVI]

Quote (princess of the king @ Nov. 15 2010,21:02)

In all your knowledge you may want to look up etiquette, and respond, thank you princess all is well with myself, hope to find you the same.

Hi Princess,

In your reply to stu you said, “In all your knowledge you may want to look up etiquette, and respond, thank you princess all is well with myself, hope to find you the same. “

I have witnessed stu respond in exactly that way dozens of times on this forum, many times in fact to you.
To insinuate that not responding in this way one time somehow shows a lack of etiquette displays a lack of consideration in my opinion, that is not up to your usual high standards.

I enjoy most of your posts anyway.

TIm

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,18:15)

Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:46) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,16:23) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2010,16:05) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 14 2010,14:59) Hi Stuart, I have been showing PROOF of his signature! (Click Here) The PROOF is there, why do you keep turning a blind eye? Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org You have not shown there is a God. Stuart Hi Stuart, Are you atheist or Agnostic? I illustrated to you it's an “Intelligent Design”. A design requires a designer, and the grand architect is YHVH! Pretty simple! A man of Science would consider new evidence or discoveries! An Agnostic would certainly want to know whether God exists or not. Only an atheist would strive to discredit any information regarding God's existence. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org An agnostic believe it is not possible to know whether gods exist or not.  You would have to show him that it is possible to know whether gods exist before attempting to do the showing bit. However, you have not showed there is a god. Stuart Hi Stuart, You present 'faulty logic'. Faulty logic from a faulty belief (atheism)! That's like saying I must first convince you a car exists, before I can show you the evidence of a “Burn Out”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Correct analogy. You have not shown that any god exists. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for setting the record straight!
You at least admit your narrow-sightedness!
We could not PROVE to you oxygen exists either; …By your own admission!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts