chigozie1010:




b:Genesis 2:15-17New International Version (NIV)en-NIV-4615TheLordGod took the man and put him in the Garden of Edento work it and take care of it.en-NIV-4716And theLordGod commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;en-NIV-4817but you must not eat from the tree of t

HellVictorinho:

But some Christians pray through Mary.
Some are against voting.
Some have books that complement the Bible.

You have the opportunity to read and find out the truth for yourself. There will always be false teachers and wrong doctrines. It's your personal responsibility to study and find out the truth for yourself. So many people don't study and that is why they are easily gullible to all forms of teachings.

You don't pray through Mary. You don't even pray through Jesus. You pray in the name of Jesus.

Voting is your civic responsibility and the Bible says we should obey those who have been set as rulers over us.

The compilation of the books that makes up the Bible were done by our spiritual fathers. If other books were not included at that time, it did not meet up with the criteria set.

XxSabrinaxX:

One thing it might be helpful to consider is, "what is the starting point for any claim?" I argue that the starting point is to not accept a claim without convincing evidence. This approach allows you to have beliefs that are limited, manageable, and supported to some extent. The other way would be to believe every claim until disproven, but since there are billions of potentially contradictory claims I don't see this as a good way.

From that perspective, the person claiming the existence of something (a new land, cells, atoms, or gods) would have the burden to support that claim. Doesn't matter what the claim is. When Newton claimed certain laws existed, it was on him and other physicists to support those claims! Today we are so comfortable with these ideas they seem self evident, but in his time they were new, radical, and not accepted until the evidence started rolling in.

Since god is a much, much bigger claim, shouldn't the believer have to support it with a lot more and better evidence?

The evidence in favour of atheists has already been presented - since god has never been directly and unquestionably observed, we postulate that god does not exist.

There is no other way to argue that something does not exist than to present the lack of evidence for its existence.

1. The above is a fallacy called argument from ignorance. That is, it is essentially a claim that an absence of evidence necessarily is the same as an evidence of absence. So, this is not even a very good approach to the argument.

2. It seems to me that you are being deliberately ignorant here. It is, of course, impossible to prove every single claim. We must of necessity take very much on trust. It is simple enough to prove. How much of what you hear everyday do you prove before acting upon? Not much at all, I am sure, you would find.

3. By your own admission, it is "new" claims (like, for example, novel claims made by scientists like Isaac Newton in his day) which must be proved. In what way would the claim that God exists qualify as a new claim then? In fact, historically, the "new" claim has been the one that there is no God. The existence of God has always been taken for granted by human beings until someone decides to reject all the evidence of their senses to pretend that it is a lie.

XxSabrinaxX:
I'm not so sure we can completely rule out the possibility of aliens existing
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-universe-trillion-galaxies.html

What I have continued to find very interesting is how easy it is for atheists to believe in the existence of aliens just because we live in a large universe but how difficult it is for them to believe in the existence of a God given that we live in an incredibly complex and vast universe that necessitates a God to explain it.

XxSabrinaxX:
Yeah.... the thing is many atheists who have chosen atheism due to rational thought have relied on evidence most often typified by that of the scientific method. In the scientific method, there is a tool called the null hypothesis which is kinda of like saying that nothing is causing the effect/observation. This is the short version and you can read up more on it if interested. This is then related to the agnostic atheist position as they define it as "I lack belief in gods". This is the definition of the null hypothesis. The simple way to prove them wrong is to prove that any god exists. It does not even have to be yours. It can be any of the thousands postulated. That proves all the atheists wrong. This is also different from the gnostic atheist position of "I believe no gods exist". This one is a claim just as the theists make claims of "I believe god(s) exist".

I would rather you demonstrated to me how this null hypothesis is any different than an argument from ignorance.

What I think is very important for atheists like yourself to come to terms with is that it isn't really the case that every theist really cares what you choose to believe. I, for one, don't really care whether you believe that God exists or not. I do wish that you believed in the Lord Jesus but I am not losing sleep over the fact that you don't. If I met you elsewhere, like at a social function or at an airport or in a bus, I would probably not say a word to you about Faith. That is not because I don't like to proclaim the Gospel, rather it is because it is too precious to give to people who don't want it and since I can't be sure that everyone I come across really wants it, I would always look for a way to test for receptivity before ever sharing the Gospel with them.

So, I have very little incentive to spend energy proving the existence of God to anybody. If I need to do so, it is already a lost cause. The reason is that there is no more sensible way to explain the world around us than that God made it. If God didn't make it, then itself is God: a most ridiculous conclusion since nothing about the universe fits the definition of God.

So, if the null hypothesis is your reason for believing that there is no God, you are quite welcome to it. I am thoroughly impressed with its absurdity but I am not at all bothered to disprove such an insane approach to life.

Ihedinobi3:

1. The above is a fallacy called argument from ignorance. That is, it is essentially a claim that an absence of evidence necessarily is the same as an evidence of absence. So, this is not even a very good approach to the argument.

2. It seems to me that you are being deliberately ignorant here. It is, of course, impossible to prove every single claim. We must of necessity take very much on trust. It is simple enough to prove. How much of what you hear everyday do you prove before acting upon? Not much at all, I am sure, you would find.

3. By your own admission, it is "new" claims (like, for example, novel claims made by scientists like Isaac Newton in his day) which must be proved. In what way would the claim that God exists qualify as a new claim then? In fact, historically, the "new" claim has been the one that there is no God. The existence of God has always been taken for granted by human beings until someone decides to reject all the evidence of their senses to pretend that it is a lie.



What I have continued to find very interesting is how easy it is for atheists to believe in the existence of aliens just because we live in a large universe but how difficult it is for them to believe in the existence of a God given that we live in an incredibly complex and vast universe that necessitates a God to explain it.



I would rather you demonstrated to me how this null hypothesis is any different than an argument from ignorance.

What I think is very important for atheists like yourself to come to terms with is that it isn't really the case that every theist really cares what you choose to believe. I, for one, don't really care whether you believe that God exists or not. I do wish that you believed in the Lord Jesus but I am not losing sleep over the fact that you don't. If I met you elsewhere, like at a social function or at an airport or in a bus, I would probably not say a word to you about Faith. That is not because I don't like to proclaim the Gospel, rather it is because it is too precious to give to people who don't want it and since I can't be sure that everyone I come across really wants it, I would always look for a way to test for receptivity before ever sharing the Gospel with them.

So, I have very little incentive to spend energy proving the existence of God to anybody. If I need to do so, it is already a lost cause. The reason is that there is no more sensible way to explain the world around us than that God made it. If God didn't make it, then itself is God: a most ridiculous conclusion since nothing about the universe fits the definition of God.

So, if the null hypothesis is your reason for believing that there is no God, you are quite welcome to it. I am thoroughly impressed with its absurdity but I am not at all bothered to disprove such an insane approach to life.

You seem salty for no reason. Let me break it down to you like this

In this case, we have three possible answers to the question of whether a god exists: belief (asserting that the claim is true), disbelief (asserting that the claim is false), and withholding judgment.

Now, we can agree that the claim "there is a god" has no support. This is basically the crux of the discussion - no support should entail no belief. Your stance is probably that there is no support for the positive claim "there is a god" but also no support for the negative claim "there is no god" which leaves you with the only reasonable option: withhold judgment.

Let's take a claim that is on equal footing with the god claim: "There is a hungry grue waiting outside my front door looking for a tasty human snack." Grue's, of course, are invisible and otherwise undetectable by any human senses or technology, also this particular grue is hungry just for me. When I go outside, it will eat me up (but doesn't bother anyone else for personal reasons). There is no evidence that this claim is true. Also, there is no evidence that this claim is false.

Should we withhold judgment on this claim? Should we really say "I don't believe there to be a grue outside my door but there could be"? This would lead to some funny things at any rate. For example, lets say your driveway is equidistant from your front and back door. You can't be sure there isn't a grue, so, when you go to your car, the most reasonable position would be to always use your back door - there might be a grue at the front door (everyone knows grues don't use back doors).

This is obviously ridiculous but it brings out an important point. In cases like "god" or "the grue" you've set up a claim with extreme results, heaven, hell, survival, death etc. This produces an interesting imbalance in our belief options: disbelief and withholding judgement are more or less functionally identical. Look at how contrived the grue example had to be to get a difference in action. Even that minor difference is pretty weak - what if there's a bleen at the back door? Then your back to withholding belief being functionally identical with disbelief.

So, if you think that withholding belief is the most reasonable option in this case, it seems that believing in the negative (there is no god) has to be more reasonable than belief (there is a god) since disbelief and withholding are functionally identical. In believing in the negative you are at most holding an unreasonable belief, in holding the positive you are holding an unreasonable belief AND taking unreasonable actions.

XxSabrinaxX:


You seem salty for no reason. Let me break it down to you like this

In this case, we have three possible answers to the question of whether a god exists: belief (asserting that the claim is true), disbelief (asserting that the claim is false), and withholding judgment.

Now, we can agree that the claim "there is a god" has no support. This is basically the crux of the discussion - no support should entail no belief. Your stance is probably that there is no support for the positive claim "there is a god" but also no support for the negative claim "there is no god" which leaves you with the only reasonable option: withhold judgment.

Let's take a claim that is on equal footing with the god claim: "There is a hungry grue waiting outside my front door looking for a tasty human snack." Grue's, of course, are invisible and otherwise undetectable by any human senses or technology, also this particular grue is hungry just for me. When I go outside, it will eat me up (but doesn't bother anyone else for personal reasons). There is no evidence that this claim is true. Also, there is no evidence that this claim is false.

Should we withhold judgment on this claim? Should we really say "I don't believe there to be a grue outside my door but there could be"? This would lead to some funny things at any rate. For example, lets say your driveway is equidistant from your front and back door. You can't be sure there isn't a grue, so, when you go to your car, the most reasonable position would be to always use your back door - there might be a grue at the front door (everyone knows grues don't use back doors).

This is obviously ridiculous but it brings out an important point. In cases like "god" or "the grue" you've set up a claim with extreme results, heaven, hell, survival, death etc. This produces an interesting imbalance in our belief options: disbelief and withholding judgement are more or less functionally identical. Look at how contrived the grue example had to be to get a difference in action. Even that minor difference is pretty weak - what if there's a bleen at the back door? Then your back to withholding belief being functionally identical with disbelief.

So, if you think that withholding belief is the most reasonable option in this case, it seems that believing in the negative (there is no god) has to be more reasonable than belief (there is a god) since disbelief and withholding are functionally identical. In believing in the negative you are at most holding an unreasonable belief, in holding the positive you are holding an unreasonable belief AND taking unreasonable actions.

To begin, this might explain my "saltiness" a bit: you conveniently ignored my first post on this thread pointing out the problems in your opening post and carry on deliberately ignoring challenges to your position. But you are clearly a very good debater. You obviously know how to break down arguments and build them up. So, your dismissal of some arguments for no stated reason only tells me that you are a dishonest debater. I thoroughly dislike dishonesty in debate. So, when I debate such people or find that people I am debating will not cease being dishonest, I quit being accommodating to them. Usually, I try to be cordial and bearable. Like I said, it makes no difference to me what any other person wants to believe but if you wish to undermine another person's beliefs, at least do so honorably and honestly. I bother to state this because you have done the exact same thing in this post, ignoring arguments you probably find inconvenient and attacking what you conceive to be soft spots.

Now, about your parallels here, they are actually not. Additionally, you have put words in my mouth. You and I are not agreed on the idea that there is no support for the Existence of God. Even an honest cursory glance at my post would immediately show that. My stance is most certainly not that there is no proof that God does not exist.

My position is:

"...we live in an incredibly complex and vast universe that necessitates a God to explain it.
- https://www.nairaland.com/post/74572845

AND

"...there is no more sensible way to explain the world around us than that God made it."
- https://www.nairaland.com/post/74572845

That is, the very Universe is the proof of God's existence. That is MY position. It is also the position of the Bible. Whether it is one you consider acceptable or not is not at issue.

So, clearly, there is a fundamental difference between your example of the grue and God. We have no way of proving whether a grue exists or not. But God has actually left the Universe and the way it works as a testimony not only to His Existence but also to what He is like, that is we can tell what His Nature is by looking at the cosmos He made.

Now, I think that your bravery in trying to legitimize a fallacy proves that you try to be an original thinker. I respect that but there is only so much a person can be original about. We cannot create rules that violate reality. If there is an absence of evidence, it is not totally unreasonable to consider that it may be evidence of absence, but it is actually complete arrogance to imagine that it is necessarily evidence of absence. It may be or it may not be. If there is absence of evidence, it depends on the nature of the decision one is faced with to decide how to call that absence, that is, what to assume about it.

But the argument for God's Existence has no lack of evidence at all. The trouble for atheists is how to interpret the evidence. There is a straightforward way to do it and a convoluted, unconvincing, even insane way to do it. But free will means that each human being can interpret the evidence any way they please, but not without consequence.

Ihedinobi3:

That is, the very Universe is the proof of God's existence. That is MY position. It is also the position of the Bible. Whether it is one you consider acceptable or not is not at issue.

So, clearly, there is a fundamental difference between your example of the grue and God. We have no way of proving whether a grue exists or not. But God has actually left the Universe and the way it works as a testimony not only to His Existence but also to what He is like, that is we can tell what His Nature is by looking at the cosmos He made.

I have a problem with this. In as much as you christians love to believe this, the honest fact is that the existence of the universe is not enough proof for the existence of God.

If God created the Universe, then, why did he do so? God must have had thoughts, a creative impulse, to create the space-time continuum. The way I see it, it is the properties and thoughts of God that explain the Universe, not just the fact that God exists. God could have easily existed for all eternity in a perfect world, without creating the Universe. So saying that God explains the existence of the Universe is not the whole story.

Then again, another thing is the argument of "Anthropic Coincidences": the argument that if you fiddle with the universal constants of physics such as the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear forces and change their values even by a little bit, then the Universe would be completely unsuitable for life as we know it, is a very popular argument that some theists and christian apologists love to make in regards to the subject of God's existence. They therefore conclude that the Universe was designed for life, specifically mankind here on earth.

But there are a number of reasonable logical and evidential arguments against this idea:
* The unimaginably vast Universe is almost everywhere completely unsuitable for life, and even here on planet Earth we can exist only on in a thin crust of a planet that is two-thirds made of water (yet we have no gills)
* Also, it took nine billion years to make the Earth, and then another four billion before Humankind appeared. The timetable makes no sense: If the Universe was designed for life, it ought to have simply started with life.
* When it comes to the sun, which religionists are sure was created to warm us, "of all the energy it emits, only two photons in a billion are used to warm Earth, the rest radiating uselessly into space".
The theory that God fashioned it this way on purpose simply doesn't make sense. Evolution does a much better job of explaining why and how life evolved, and is a theory based on evidence, unlike the "God designed life" theory, which is based on pure speculation. Not only that, but it simply reeks of egotistical and prideful wishful-thinking to imagine that the creator of a billion galaxies made all of it with our particular species in mind. If we did change the Universal constants, then, for all we know, even more intelligent life could have evolved in even more different ways. In other words we have no knowledge at all to indicate that the current set-up is optimal for life.

Ultimately, there is no difference between God and the grue here. The concept of a theistic god is still too superficial to rationalize, at least in my opinion.

XxSabrinaxX:

I have a problem with this. In as much as you christians love to believe this, the honest fact is that the existence of the universe is not enough proof for the existence of God.

If God created the Universe, then, why did he do so? God must have had thoughts, a creative impulse, to create the space-time continuum. The way I see it, it is the properties and thoughts of God that explain the Universe, not just the fact that God exists. God could have easily existed for all eternity in a perfect world, without creating the Universe. So saying that God explains the existence of the Universe is not the whole story.

I am at a loss as to how not knowing why God created the Universe in any way renders insufficient the evidence that the Existence of the Universe itself provides for the Existence of God. That is like saying that not knowing why Ford invented the Model T means that we cannot know for certain that he did. Very weird thinking.

XxSabrinaxX:
Then again, another thing is the argument of "Anthropic Coincidences": the argument that if you fiddle with the universal constants of physics such as the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear forces and change their values even by a little bit, then the Universe would be completely unsuitable for life as we know it, is a very popular argument that some theists and christian apologists love to make in regards to the subject of God's existence. They therefore conclude that the Universe was designed for life, specifically mankind here on earth.

But there are a number of convincing logical and evidential arguments against this idea:
* The unimaginably vast Universe is almost everywhere completely unsuitable for life, and even here on planet Earth we can exist only on in a thin crust of a planet that is two-thirds made of water (yet we have no gills)
* Also, it took nine billion years to make the Earth, and then another four billion before Humankind appeared. The timetable makes no sense: If the Universe was designed for life, it ought to have simply started with life.
* When it comes to the sun, which religionists are sure was created to warm us, "of all the energy it emits, only two photons in a billion are used to warm Earth, the rest radiating uselessly into space".
The theory that God fashioned it this way on purpose simply doesn't make sense. Evolution does a much better job of explaining why and how life evolved, and is a theory based on evidence, unlike the "God designed life" theory, which is based on pure speculation. Not only that, but it simply reeks of egotistical and prideful wishful-thinking to imagine that the creator of a billion galaxies made all of it with our particular species in mind. If we did change the Universal constants, then, for all we know, even more intelligent life could have evolved in even more different ways. In other words we have no knowledge at all to indicate that the current set-up is optimal for life.

Did I make this argument?

Ihedinobi3:

I am at a loss as to how not knowing why God created the Universe in any way renders insufficient the evidence that the Existence of the Universe itself provides for the Existence of God. That is like saying that not knowing why Ford invented the Model T means that we cannot know for certain that he did. Very weird thinking.



Did I make this argument?

Is this a game? What did you mean by this statement then?:

That is, the very Universe is the proof of God's existence. That is MY position. It is also the position of the Bible. Whether it is one you consider acceptable or not is not at issue.

You said it yourself that the universe is proof of God's existence and I went ahead to show you the fault in that line of reasoning. Are you ready to provide evidence for your God or not?

XxSabrinaxX:



Is this a game? What did you mean by this statement then?:

You said it yourself that the universe is proof of God's existence and I went ahead to show you the fault in that line of reasoning. Are you ready to provide evidence for your God or not?

Actually, that would be my question to you. You think a debate is a pick-and-choose picnic where you answer what you like, ignore what you like, make up what you like and throw tantrums when you like?

I have nothing to prove to you. You made an argument that I challenged and you have spent posts trying to convince me that you are not responsible to prove anything you say. I simply am not falling for it.

You cannot claim that anything is a fact and then ask me if it is a game when I ask you how such a weird thing is a fact. How is it a fact that the existence of a product is not sufficient evidence for its maker? Should I take your word for it? Why does the absence of the maker's motive render the existence of the product insufficient evidence for its maker? You make the claim, you prove the claim.

As for my question at the end, that is the dishonety I spoke of. You dig up an argument that other theists and apologists make and ask me to defend it? Are you being serious? Why should I defend an argument I haven't made? Have you defended the ones that you yourself made, much less any one that I have made for you, even if I had made any for you?

You are the one playing a game here and I have already told you that I do not consider it funny.

Ihedinobi3:

Actually, that would be my question to you. You think a debate is a pick-and-choose picnic where you answer what you like, ignore what you like, make up what you like and throw tantrums when you like?

I have nothing to prove to you. You made an argument that I challenged and you have spent posts trying to convince me that you are not responsible to prove anything you say. I simply am not falling for it.

You cannot claim that anything is a fact and then ask me if it is a game when I ask you how such a weird thing is a fact. How is it a fact that the existence of a product is not sufficient evidence for its maker? Should I take your word for it? Why does the absence of the maker's motive render the existence of the product insufficient evidence for its maker? You make the claim, you prove the claim.

As for my question at the end, that is the dishonety I spoke of. You dig up an argument that other theists and apologists make and ask me to defend it? Are you being serious? Why should I defend an argument I haven't made? Have you defended the ones that you yourself made, much less any one that I have made for you, even if I had made any for you?

You are the one playing a game here and I have already told you that I do not consider it funny.

Lol. You're either a dumbass or a fucking troll

You've been attacking me with hostility but i chose to spare you shame by not returning the favour. You opened your asshole of a mouth to claim that the universe was proof for god's existence and now that i've debunked your bs, you're now going on to rant like a butthurt toddler about how you dont have anything to prove? Lol. Suit yourself

I've said it before to many christians and i'll say it again to you now: if I have to prove to you that your god doesn't exist, you'll have to prove to me that i'm not your god testing you.

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol. You're either a dumbass or a fucking troll

You've been attacking me with hostility but i chose to spare you shame by not returning the favour. You opened your asshole of a mouth to claim that the universe was proof for god's existence and now that i've debunked your bs, you're now going on to rant like a butthurt toddler about how you dont have anything to prove? Lol. Suit yourself

I've said it before to many christians and i'll say it again to you now: if I have to prove to you that your god doesn't exist, you'll have to prove to me that i'm not your god testing you.

Says the one calling names. I am attacking you with hostility, you say. Yet it is you who are throwing invective everywhere. Your dishonesty earned you my attitude. I cut many of the atheists I debate with plenty of slack. But you are probably the most dishonest atheist I have ever had the displeasure of debating. And just now you prove it again.

You debunked something I said? Where exactly did you do that? I wouldn't be surprised if this is in your imagination. You simply can't walk a straight line in a conversation, can you?

And you end your rant again with yet another rejection of any intellectual responsibility for your travesty of a position.

Ihedinobi3:

Says the one calling names. I am attacking you with hostility, you say. Yet it is you who are throwing invectives everywhere. Your dishonesty earned you my attitude. I cut many of the atheists I debate with plenty of slack. But you are probably the most dishonest atheist I have ever had the displeasure of debating. And just now you prove it again.

You debunked something I said? Where exactly did you do that? I wouldn't be surprised if this is in your imagination. You simply can't walk a straight line in a conversation, can you?

And you end your rant again with yet another rejection of any intellectual responsibility for your travesty of a position.

You said the Universe proves God's existence and I replied by stating how that is false by listing all the ways the Universe's design contradicts the idea that God exists.
Your statement:

That is, the very Universe is the proof of God's existence. That is MY position. It is also the position of the Bible. Whether it is one you consider acceptable or not is not at issue.

My rebuttal:

* The unimaginably vast Universe is almost everywhere completely unsuitable for life, and even here on planet Earth we can exist only on in a thin crust of a planet that is two-thirds made of water (yet we have no gills)
* Also, it took nine billion years to make the Earth, and then another four billion before Humankind appeared. The timetable makes no sense: If the Universe was designed for life, it ought to have simply started with life.
* When it comes to the sun, which religionists are sure was created to warm us, "of all the energy it emits, only two photons in a billion are used to warm Earth, the rest radiating uselessly into space".
The theory that God fashioned it this way on purpose simply doesn't make sense. Evolution does a much better job of explaining why and how life evolved, and is a theory based on evidence, unlike the "God designed life" theory, which is based on pure speculation. Not only that, but it simply reeks of egotistical and prideful wishful-thinking to imagine that the creator of a billion galaxies made all of it with our particular species in mind.

E pain am . Butthurt piece of trash
You're going to need a colonoscopy for all that butthurt
[img]https://media1./images/a6c96f8e0292a23920311848c7d702e2/tenor.gif[/img]

Ihedinobi3:

What I have continued to find very interesting is how easy it is for atheists to believe in the existence of aliens just because we live in a large universe but how difficult it is for them to believe in the existence of a God given that we live in an incredibly complex and vast universe that necessitates a God to explain it.

How did i miss this lol? Its even more interesting how christians choose to believe that Yahweh came from nothing but can't handle the thought that the universe comes from nothing
You're garbage
[img]https://media./images/99e09cad7fb33578541b93dd274b4391/tenor.gif[/img]

XxSabrinaxX:

You said the Universe proves God's existence and I replied by stating how that is false by listing all the ways the Universe's design contradicts the idea that God exists.
Your statement:

My rebuttal:


E pain am . Butthurt piece of trash
You're going to need a colonoscopy for all that butthurt
[img]https://media1./images/a6c96f8e0292a23920311848c7d702e2/tenor.gif[/img]

SMH. I could have easily guessed. The one argument that you threw out and I refused to address is your win. You are such an amateur.

Listen, there is such a thing as a straw man. That is when you make up an argument and attribute it to your opponent and insist that it is theirs so that they must defend it. That was what you did with your OP as well. And, of course, when I properly explained the biblical position that you were attacking, did you respond? How could you? Your argument was already destroyed just showing that you had misrepresented the Bible!

I do have an answer to that nonsense you typed up. I tend to always do since I have been doing this for a while. But why should I defend an argument I didn't make? I said that the Universe demands a Maker. God is that Maker. I was not arguing at all that the Universe was designed to support life or all that stuff you pulled out of your hat. If you wanted to disprove MY actual argument, you would demonstrate how the Universe DOES NOT need a maker. That is what you do. Not tell me to defend a straw man. I have no reason to do that.

What is more, you are the one who made a thread to demonstrate stuff and nonsense that you have not been able to hold up for even a second under scrutiny. At what you perceive as the first sign of faltering, all of a sudden, you have debunked and butthurt all and sundry. You are way too full of yourself.

You should probably keep an eye on my account. Someone else will present this objection that you have made in a proper and more respectful way and I will answer it in the same fashion. But for you, you deserve not a moment of my time.

XxSabrinaxX:

How did i miss this lol? Its even more interesting how christians choose to believe that Yahweh came from nothing but can't handle the thought that the universe comes from nothing

You missed a very great deal. It began with my first post. I think the only thing atheists of your particular hue prefer is to hunt apologists you think you can insult. You cannot actually put up with a real debate.

As for your retort here, it is yet another straw man. The Bible teaches that God has always been and will always be. He never "came" from anywhere. That is what you yourself made up.

Ihedinobi3:


First, Hell exists, according to the Bible, in order to separate out those who do not want to be ruled by God from the Creation over which He rules. Everything you have said in your argument appears to completely ignore that. Or else, would you really be advocating that it is fair to subject people who don't want to be ruled by God to His Rule eternally, that is, without any respite at all?

God indeed created hell for the defaulters. But why punish them for sin he already knew they'd commit

Ihedinobi3:
Second, according to the Bible, every good thing comes from God so that the horror of Hell is only so because God gives nothing good indefinitely to those who want no part of Him. Are you arguing that He should? Why should He? What obliges Him to keep giving His good gifts to those who don't want anything to do with Him?

In a predetermined universe, choice doesn't exist. God knew how every sinner would turn out. What did he do to rectify the mess?

Ihedinobi3:
Third, how would it be loving of God to force people to obey Him? Would it not be more consistent with Love to allow them to choose whether they want to or not? That is what free will is about.

My point exactly. Omniscience and omnipotence contradict free will. Free will cannot exist with the former.

Ihedinobi3:
Fourth, when people choose unrelenting enmity and rebellion against God and abuse His Gifts damaging His Precious Creation and attacking those who love Him, is it fair that He should just let such people go on existing forever without any punishment?

Like a said, choice doesn't exist in a predetermined universe

Ihedinobi3:
Fifth, when people are helplessly sinful and rebellious, how is it God's fault that they are given that they possess a true ability to choose to be otherwise?

God has predetermined their actions already

Ihedinobi3:
Sixth, when God graciously grants a way of escape out of rebellion against Him and the terrifying consequences due to such a thing, why is He to be blamed when the majority refuse to take it when it costs them nothing but simple Faith and Trust in Him?

God initiated the sin loop himself by not preventing the sin of Eve. He caused the fall of mankind.

Ihedinobi3:
Your argument ignores all these things. Are you really unaware that that is what the Bible teaches? Or do you not care that that is what you are arguing against? Or do you have some reason to believe that these things are not true?

I didn't choose to ignore your post so dont get ur knickers in a twist. For some reason I didn't see this mention so I just jumped to the last post.
I didn't even really do justice to any of the above questions because it all comes down to the same thing: God knows ALL things. All knowledge of the past, present and future is contained in him. He knows the action every man will take before said action is taken. Omniscience is not compatible with free will. If God exists, freewill doesn't.

Ihedinobi3:


As for your retort here, it is yet another straw man. The Bible teaches that God has always been and will always be. He never "came" from anywhere. That is what you yourself made up.

How did I make that up?
Use the bible to prove something to an atheist. Yup, that works a lot . Good job, you're a dumbass.

XxSabrinaxX:

How did I make that up?
Use the bible to prove something to an atheist. Yup, that works a lot . Good job, you're a dumbass.

Do you see how bad your problem is? You are obviously smart enough to make sophisticated arguments and even follow one too. But you have no basic decency.

You are attacking Christianity. Should you not get straight what you are attacking? If you attribute the wrong arguments to Christianity, that is the straw man fallacy. And you run the risk of being accused of dishonesty.

Now, you obviously don't know what the Bible actually says. You also don't care. But you have no problems claiming that Christians believe this or that and then build rebuttals against such false positions and then call your opponent a dumbass for correcting your straw men. Do you see who merits that epithet yet?

Ihedinobi3:

Do you see how bad your problem is? You are obviously smart enough to make sophisticated arguments and even follow one too. But you have no basic decency.

You are attacking Christianity. Should you not get straight what you are attacking? If you attribute the wrong arguments to Christianity, that is the straw man fallacy. And you run the risk of being accused of dishonesty.

Now, you obviously don't know what the Bible actually says. You also don't care. But you have no problems claiming that Christians believe this or that and then build rebuttals against such false positions and then call your opponent a dumbass for correcting your straw men. Do you see who merits that epithet yet?

Where did I make it confusing of which God I was talking about? I made it clear right from my very first post. I know what the bible says but I just don't buy the bullshit in it. Hence why I said its useless providing evidence to an atheist with a bible. So yeah, You're still a dumbass.

XxSabrinaxX:

God indeed created hell for the defaulters. But why punish them for sin he already knew they'd commit

Should we scrap all penal systems since we know that criminals will commit crimes anyway?

XxSabrinaxX:
In a predetermined universe, choice doesn't exist. God knew how every sinner would turn out. What did he do to rectify the mess?

What does this response have to do with the objection I made here?

XxSabrinaxX:
My point exactly. Omniscience and omnipotence contradict free will. Free will cannot exist with the former.

Why can they not? In what way do God's Omnipotence and Omniscience contradict free will?

XxSabrinaxX:
Like a said, choice doesn't exist in a predetermined universe

The discussion immediately above will address this argument. For now, what does this have to do with the question I asked? Assuming indeed that there is such a thing as a free will, is it fair if God to let such people go without punishment?

XxSabrinaxX:
God has predetermined their actions already

Again, this is an argument that you are making. It is no unquestionable fact. And we are addressing it already elsewhere (assuming that you are actually disposed to having a decent conversation). So, assuming that they can choose, answer the question.

XxSabrinaxX:
God initiated the sin loop himself by not preventing the sin of Eve. He caused the fall of mankind.

If your argument is true, then when He offered mankind an escape, is it His fault if they choose not to take it?

XxSabrinaxX:
I didn't choose to ignore your post so dont get ur knickers in a twist. For some reason I didn't see this mention so I just jumped to the last post.
I didn't even really do justice to any of the above questions because it all comes down to the same thing: God knows ALL things. All knowledge of the past, present and future is contained in him. He knows the action every man will take before said action is taken. Omniscience is not compatible with free will.

The heavens didn't fall when you typed this, did they?

As for your argument, they will be addressed elsewhere.

XxSabrinaxX:

Where did I make it confusing of which God I was talking about? I made it clear right from my very first post. I know what the bible says but I just don't buy the bullshit in it. Hence why I said its useless providing evidence to an atheist with a bible. So yeah, You're still a dumbass.

Events follow events timelessly and the Effect of this timeless activity is termed Existence.
So,Existence is Possible provided that Actuality remains Constant.
The Constant here acts as the phenomenal quantity which effects Actuality timelessly.
Therefore,in Actuality, the Forms of Existence occur at ANYTIME.
Hence,no beginning/end,which would make In-Existence possible.
My Sublime Sabrine,you have tried to convince your opponent here but she won't agree.
Leave the rest to my formula which clarifies the matter timelessly.

XxSabrinaxX:

Where did I make it confusing of which God I was talking about? I made it clear right from my very first post. I know what the bible says but I just don't buy the bullshit in it. Hence why I said its useless providing evidence to an atheist with a bible. So yeah, You're still a dumbass.

I am quite sure that I said nothing like that you were confusing about which God you meant. It seems obvious from your OP that you were talking about the Trinity.

You are an atheist attacking Christianity. Of course, you don't believe the Bible. But if you know what the Bible says and you go on to misrepresent it in debate, then you are being dishonest.

You are new around these parts. It almost never happens that I offer the Bible as evidence to atheists. I only bring up the Bible to correct straw men like yours. You attributed arguments to Christianity and I corrected you. I could care less what you believe. I just won't let you get away with lying about what the Bible actually says. And if you have only been making mistakes (I always give atheists benefit of the doubt when they do what you did but your behavior here has been horrid, too horrid to warrant any more benefit of the doubt), then I'll correct you so that other people won't be misled.

Ihedinobi3:
Should we scrap all penal systems since we know that criminals will commit crimes anyway?

If we have the power to stop such crimes before they happen, then yes. Punishment isn't even necessary.

Ihedinobi3:
What does this response have to do with the objection I made here?

You stated that God gives nothing good to those who want no part of him. Are you saying those that rejected God did so based on their free will?

Ihedinobi3:
Why can they not? In what way do God's Omnipotence and Omniscience contradict free will?

I'll answer this by lifting my response to another user on another thread regarding this question:
In his omnipotence, God has the power to affect all of these little influences such that every "free will" outcome is possible and every type of universe is possible. If not, then he was not omnipotent at the time of creation. But if you agree that he did have the power based solely on the specific design of each detail of the universe, then the details he chose mean that he necessarily chose this specific outcome, which includes the exact universe we have now and will have till the end of time.

Ihedinobi3:
The discussion immediately above will address this argument. For now, what does this have to do with the question I asked? Assuming indeed that there is such a thing as a free will, is it fair if God to let such people go without punishment?

Even the bible states that God knows all our actions before we take them. Nothing is wrong with punishing an offender. But if you knew the sin the offender would commit before it happened, and you had the power to stop it from happening. You really don't have the right to punish said offender.

Ihedinobi3:
Again, this is an argument that you are making. It is no unquestionable fact. And we are addressing it already elsewhere (assuming that you are actually disposed to having a decent conversation). So, assuming that they can choose, answer the question.

I said being sinful was not their choice because God had already predetermined their actions. How don't you get it?
Lifting once again from another thread(cos honestly im too lazy right now to come up with an original response):
As he was choosing the details (physics/chemistry/etc/etc) of the universe, he saw exactly how each would cause the universe to play out. If he couldn't see that, he lacked omniscience. As such, when he chose the details he did, he effectively chose that exact universe to play out. Because all of our "free will" decisions are at least partially affected by external influences, his choice of details could have resulted in every logically possible combination/permutation of "free will" decisions that he could have possibly wanted. By choosing the specific set of details that he chose, he effectively chose the specific universe we have right now, which includes every single occurrence down to all of our "free will" decisions and the spin of every electron (and at even greater detail than that).
In other words, even though it was arguably my "free will" decision to eat a squirrel sandwich for lunch today, god had the power to design the details of the universe such that I would've chosen a ham sandwich instead. Or he could've designed the details such that I would've chosen a unicorn sandwich. Or ANYTHING he wanted to the extent you claim he was omnipotent and omniscient at the time of creation. That means my decision to eat a squirrel for lunch was part of his master plan from the point of creation.

Ihedinobi3:
If your argument is true, then when He offered mankind an escape, is it His fault if they choose not to take it?

Yes

Ihedinobi3:
The heavens didn't fall when you typed this, did they?

As for your argument, they will be addressed elsewhere.

What part of "I didn't see this mention in the first place" don't you understand? Seriously, tell me
As for my arguments, I want them addressed here and now. Don't even think you can chicken out. You accuse of me failing to support my claims when you're even more guilty of the act. Dumbass coward.

Ihedinobi3:

I am quite sure that I said nothing like that you were confusing about which God you meant. It seems obvious from your OP that you were talking about the Trinity.

You are an atheist attacking Christianity. Of course, you don't believe the Bible. But if you know what the Bible says and you go on to misrepresent it in debate, then you are being dishonest.

You are new around these parts. It almost never happens that I offer the Bible as evidence to atheists. I only bring up the Bible to correct straw men like yours. You attributed arguments to Christianity and I corrected you. I could care less what you believe. I just won't let you get away with lying about what the Bible actually says. And if you have only been making mistakes (I always give atheists benefit of the doubt when they do what you did but your behavior here has been horrid, too horrid to warrant any more benefit of the doubt), then I'll correct you so that other people won't be misled.

And in what ways, pray tell, did i misrepresent it? I'm waiting for an answer

When the sinners hear the word Hell and Judgement...

They are uneasy and then remember that GOD IS LOVE.

First, I came to God because I don't want his anger ...To be free from eternal rejection from his presence.

Now, I am no longer with God because of hell. God forbid ..

I am with him because of his power that I have demonstrated and the sweet experience of fellowship with him ... and I just want some more and some more.

That's the spiritual growth we are talking about.

I don't even remember hell.

However, when you talk about judgement and hell, a lot of people kick. Then, they remember that God is love.

I don't know why..

Maybe I know.....

They are guilty and don't want to repent.

It's like an arrogant, adulterous and stubborn wife telling her husband...

"love me for who I am"

Really?

Hell is not even the greatest punishment for sinners...

Yes. You heard me.


When, at death, you are banished from the PRESENCE OF THE GLORY OF GOD ....

Seeing how awesomely wonderful it is just to behold his glory,

Your soul will weep sour....

Before you are even cast in hell,

You will be filled with sorrow regardless of how infinite your soul shall be.


To the children of God,

Note this..... Jesus the Judge is Jesus our advocate.

Imagine the judge being your lawyer?

Yeah. Sweet.

This is biblical in all aspect.

@ihedinobi3 Don't tell me you've taken to your heels already o ... cause i'm still very much here waiting for your answer! Show me how I misrepresented the bible unless you just want me to believe that you're full of shi!t. You're a dumbass and you can't read, you need to stop sitting at the back of the classroom and start sitting at the front.

XxSabrinaxX:
@ihedinobi3 Don't tell me you've taken to your heels already o... cause i'm still very much here waiting for your answer! Show me how I misrepresented the bible unless you just want me to believe that you're full of shi!t

Her debating skills don't really worth your energy but you can help her with this :Two different propositions can't be true at the same time so suggesting limited time(leading to the possibility of inexistence) and unlimited time(leading to the possibility of existence) makes both false.
But,we know that unlimited time(leading to the possibility of existence) is true.
So,TIME should be creating the limits..
TIME shouldn't be limited to make people believe there is a creator or even a 'first event' which is impossible.
There is no first/last event in the Forming of Existence.

XxSabrinaxX:

Where did I make it confusing of which God I was talking about? I made it clear right from my very first post. I know what the bible says but I just don't buy the bullshit in it. Hence why I said its useless providing evidence to an atheist with a bible. So yeah, You're still a dumbass.

Look my friend, Jesus loves you. Kindly give your life to Him and be born again right now because tomorrow might be too late. The eternal destination of all the people who refuse the biblical truth is Hell Fire.
I can assure you, hell fire is a place you don't want to spend your eternity. God bless yo.

wetin7:


Look my friend, Jesus loves you. Kindly give your life to Him and be born again right now because tomorrow might be too late. The eternal destination of all the people who refuse the biblical truth is Hell Fire.
I can assure you, hell fire is a place you don't want to spend your eternity. God bless yo.

Prove it. Prove to me that hell is real without using the bible... i'll wait.

Sometimes I wonder if you christians are naturally this dumb or you have to put in effort.

XxSabrinaxX:

Prove it. Prove to me that hell is real without using the bible... i'll wait.

Sometimes I wonder if you christians are naturally this dumb or you have to put in effort.

Religion is a Crime against Humanity.

XxSabrinaxX:

If we have the power to stop such crimes before they happen, then yes. Punishment isn't even necessary.

So, how would you stop such crimes before they happen?

XxSabrinaxX:
You stated that God gives nothing good to those who want no part of him. Are you saying those that rejected God did so based on their free will?

First of all, what I said is:

"God gives nothing good indefinitely to those who want no part of Him."

"Indefinitely" is a keyword there. Right now, those who want no part of God are still enjoying His good things.

To your question, whether or not they reject God out of their own free will, how can God be obliged in any respect to anybody?

XxSabrinaxX:
I'll answer this by lifting my response to another user on another thread regarding this question:
In his omnipotence, God has the power to affect all of these little influences such that every "free will" outcome is possible and every type of universe is possible. If not, then he was not omnipotent at the time of creation. But if you agree that he did have the power based solely on the specific design of each detail of the universe, then the details he chose mean that he necessarily chose this specific outcome, which includes the exact universe we have now and will have till the end of time.

You are not far off the mark. Let me quote something I said elsewhere as well:

"Free will is the moral creature's God-given right to choose whether to submit to God or to rebel against Him. But because nothing at all can happen unless God empowers it, our choices were all ordained by God before He even created anything. These choices however were ordained because God knew for certain exactly what each of us want to choose. That is, God knew that Pharaoh, for example, would not want to submit to Him, so He made him so that he would choose not to. For an opposite example, God knew that David would want to be devoted to Him, so He made him so that he would choose to be.

What this means is that free will is a true ability that creatures possess to decide their own eternal fate. God's Own Part is to make those choices possible since He alone can because of both His Omniscience and His Omnipotence."
- https://www.nairaland.com/4944310/gods-omnipotence-contradicts-requirement-free/2#74574900

XxSabrinaxX:
Even the bible states that God knows all our actions before we take them. Nothing is wrong with punishing an offender. But if you knew the sin the offender would commit before it happened, and you had the power to stop it from happening. You really don't have the right to punish said offender.

Now, the only way that God can prevent people from sinning if they want to is to take away their free will, that is, their right and responsibility to decide whether or not to obey Him. Is that what you are advocating that God should have done?

XxSabrinaxX:
I said being sinful was not their choice because God had already predetermined their actions. How don't you get it?
Lifting once again from another thread(cos honestly im too lazy right now to come up with an original response):
As he was choosing the details (physics/chemistry/etc/etc) of the universe, he saw exactly how each would cause the universe to play out. If he couldn't see that, he lacked omniscience. As such, when he chose the details he did, he effectively chose that exact universe to play out. Because all of our "free will" decisions are at least partially affected by external influences, his choice of details could have resulted in every logically possible combination/permutation of "free will" decisions that he could have possibly wanted. By choosing the specific set of details that he chose, he effectively chose the specific universe we have right now, which includes every single occurrence down to all of our "free will" decisions and the spin of every electron (and at even greater detail than that).
In other words, even though it was arguably my "free will" decision to eat a squirrel sandwich for lunch today, god had the power to design the details of the universe such that I would've chosen a ham sandwich instead. Or he could've designed the details such that I would've chosen a unicorn sandwich. Or ANYTHING he wanted to the extent you claim he was omnipotent and omniscient at the time of creation. That means my decision to eat a squirrel for lunch was part of his master plan from the point of creation.

Let me explain again: you are challenging the Christian position. That means that you need to make assumptions consistent with said position in order to demonstrate the errors in the position. You cannot force your own premises upon the arguments you are attacking.

The Christian position assumes a free will. We are currently discussing that elsewhere. For this particular argument, you have to answer on the assumption that there is a free will. If you cannot, then you cannot make an objection that I would countenance.

XxSabrinaxX:
Yes

Go on. How so?

XxSabrinaxX:

And in what ways, pray tell, did i misrepresent it? I'm waiting for an answer

Refer to my first post.