Arguments for God's Existence

[Deleted member 619]

Life is eternal therefore God exists. Jesus said " I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last...."

I am certain.

While you will not accept this as evidence.... the mere confidence a Christian can display is already a blow to the distinctly inconfident atheist.


Further evidence will never be required because the atheist does not possess even a single argument for which he can confidently state Jesus does not exist.

Marvellous exposition of the onus probandi fallacy. Not only is it not my position that he doesn't exist, it isn't my responsibility to demonstrate it even if it were my position. The burden is ALWAYS on the affirmative.

 

[Dustnite]

And the response as predicted.... provides zero evidence God does not exist.

This will always be the case.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And the response as predicted.... provides zero evidence God does not exist.

This will always be the case.

:lol:

And there goes Bernhard's cover.

 

[Sparhafoc]

While you will not accept this as evidence.... the mere confidence a Christian can display is already a blow to the distinctly inconfident atheist.

Hack might remember - which Creationist was it that used to always trot this notion out?

What a laughable mess that man's brain must be - too much religion, not enough education.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Not sure. Byers had a tendency toward ad populum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Not sure. Byers had a tendency toward ad populum.

Definitely wasn't Mr Truth Disco.

Was it Jason?

He kept going on about how he was so confident about his religious beliefs, but 'atheists' kept changing their minds based on scientific progress. The notion he tried to forward was that it's superior to hold on to a belief regardless of the evidence against it - this shows the value of his belief system, according to him. He made a big deal about 'atheists' saying they don't know, and contrasted it with how he, as a religionist, would make confident declarations about everything.

Looks indistinguishable from LEROY or Bernhard, though. Ignorant confidence is a necessary ingredient to being a Creationist?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It's the need for certainty that causes individuals to cleave to an ideology, - or just an idea - regardless whether it's religious, political, social, etc.

Some need certainty, others don't.

Some are comfortable without knowing the answer, others have to have "the answer" - even if it's shown to be wrong, at which point they become ever more entrenched in claiming they're right.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Now that, I have written about.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-need-to-know-basis.html

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

It's the need for certainty that causes individuals to cleave to an ideology, - or just an idea - regardless whether it's religious, political, social, etc.

Some need certainty, others don't.

Some are comfortable without knowing the answer, others have to have "the answer" - even if it's shown to be wrong, at which point they become ever more entrenched in claiming they're right.

Kindest regards,

James

that is the point that I was making in my thread about aliens and I was severely insulted by Sparhafoc lets see if he has the balls to insult you for making the same statement.

 

[Sparhafoc]

that is the point that I was making in my thread about aliens and I was severely insulted by Sparhafoc lets see if he has the balls to insult you for making the same statement.

Absolute fucking lies.

Not only did I say no such thing in your thread about aliens, but as everyone here knows, you repeatedly refused to allow me to rightfully and honestly say that we don't know about the state in which the universe began. You still refuse to allow me to say it, even though it is factually true.

Why do you keep lying, LEROY?

Your lies are not believed by anyone here, and all your lies do is paint you as a character who places no value on truth, just on blagging, bluster, and bullshit.

Who do you think you're fooling, LEROY?

 

[Sparhafoc]

And for the record, this is really what other people think about LEROY's bullshit, and guess where it's from? LEROY's alien thread.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181273#p181273

I do not understand why one would so obviously act so dishonestly on a written forum. Dandan/Leroy did this right below Sparhafoc's post. Does dandan/leroy not realize that people can just scroll up to see how he is misrepresenting Sparhafoc?

Yep, but LEROY's the victim now! :roll:

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
but even if we grant that there was time before the big bang, there would still be many reasons to assume that time begun to exist anyway,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.465

8

Wrong. There's never a reason to assume anything until it's demonstrated. Also, Vilenkin is wrong, and running much further with the evidence than is warranted. I'm fully cognisant of his work, considerably more than you are. This is directly in my wheelhouse, while yours consists of.. what, exactly?

Ok following from this thread
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15480&start=540

Now that user he_who_is_nobody is aware of the existence of this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf he will answer a very simple question

¿HWN, do you grant that the universe probably* had a beginning?

Yes: which would imply that you are affirming that your friend hack is wrong, and that premise 2 in the KCA is true
No: which would imply that you are denying what real scientists say, and tacitly admitting that you don’t care about what peer review papers say?

But deep inside we both know that you will not respond with a simple yes or a simple no, chances say that you will provide an ambiguous answer where you don’t affirm nor deny anything

*With probably I simply mean that this is what the current evidence suggests (despite not being 100% certainly sure)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Now that user he_who_is_nobody is aware of the existence of this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf he will answer a very simple question

¿HWN, do you grant that the universe probably* had a beginning?

Our observable universe, which is what that paper is talking about had a beginning? Yes. However, I doubt you will ever find me stating otherwise. I always try to be clear in this regard by using the terms our observable universe for our current observable expanse of space and time and and Universe for everything.

Yes: which would imply that you are affirming that your friend hack is wrong, and that premise 2 in the KCA is true
No: which would imply that you are denying what real scientists say, and tacitly admitting that you don’t care about what peer review papers say?

You ask a deep scientific and philosophical question and expect only a yes or a no. Dandan/Leroy, what have I told you about your terrible scripts?

Beyond that, I am saying yes, while still also agreeing with hackenslash. Now, I do not expect someone that cannot pars basic physics to grasp this, but oh well.

But deep inside we both know that you will not respond with a simple yes or a simple no, chances say that you will provide an ambiguous answer where you don’t affirm nor deny anything

Trying to predict the future. You are as good at that as you were at mind reading.

 

[thenexttodie]

Hello Sparhafoc.

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a crack at these and you can tell me what you think. :shock:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Sense? Really?

So it's sensible to posit that a being lives outside of time and space, who has the power to create universes with magical words, and did so with a special purpose in mind here, to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them?

So this sense also includes making a space of at least 3.58×1080 m3, and then plopping down his special creation - the point of all this universe - on a small planet in an otherwise unremarkable solar system, with a livable area for his special purpose of just 24,642,757 square miles.

And this makes sense?

It makes no more sense than any other creation myth. Humans who didn't know about much at all, tried to imagine ways in which complicated things happened, and posited super human like characters to do the shaking and moving. No sense is involved, just story-telling, imagination, and ignorance.

It makes nonsense, I will give you that.

Well it's not nonsense. The Bible says we were created in the image of a living and relational god. So it would make sense that we are able to have a rational understanding of the Universe that god created for us to live in. Historically, pagans and Atheists have contributed virtuallly nothing. Christians own science. This true on so many levels. In terms of actualy founding a science, in terms of Noble recognition..in so many ways. I can continue on this if you like.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

The universe is manifestly not fine-tuned for life, so that demolishes in entirety the whole screed if they'd claim such manifestly delusional bullshit.

I have pointed out somewhere in a much earlier thread, that when scientists (even secular scientists) talk or publish something on fine tuning, even when they word it as "fine tuning for life", they are actually talking about the fine tuning for the existence of stars and matter.

It would be interesting for you, as an evolutionist, to explain why all the dirt or dust scattered throughout the universe should not be considered as "evolutionary stardust".

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

Like smashing baby's heads against rocks, taking prepubescent virgins as trophies of war after killing their families, playing tricks on parents pretending to want them to murder their own children, sending floods to murder every human, every animal, plant and organism on the planet in a fit of pique.

Those kind of morals, you mean?

I don't know why you think any of these have anything to do with a biblical, moral expectation of us.

 

[leroy]

Now that user he_who_is_nobody is aware of the existence of this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf he will answer a very simple question

¿HWN, do you grant that the universe probably* had a beginning?

Our observable universe, which is what that paper is talking about had a beginning? Yes. However, I doubt you will ever find me stating otherwise. I always try to be clear in this regard by using the terms our observable universe for our current observable expanse of space and time and and Universe for everything.

Yes: which would imply that you are affirming that your friend hack is wrong, and that premise 2 in the KCA is true
No: which would imply that you are denying what real scientists say, and tacitly admitting that you don’t care about what peer review papers say?

You ask a deep scientific and philosophical question and expect only a yes or a no. Dandan/Leroy, what have I told you about your terrible scripts?

Beyond that, I am saying yes, while still also agreeing with hackenslash. Now, I do not expect someone that cannot pars basic physics to grasp this, but oh well.

But deep inside we both know that you will not respond with a simple yes or a simple no, chances say that you will provide an ambiguous answer where you don’t affirm nor deny anything

Trying to predict the future. You are as good at that as you were at mind reading.

Wrong, the paper talks about the entire universe including “non observable regions” and including other parallel worlds that, might exist.

The point of the author of the paper is that even if there was something before the big bang, there was a beginning.
The author even uses the technical term “past incomplete” to prevent the kind of stupid semantic games that you are trying to play

Hack manifestly and unambiguously affirmed that he disagrees with the authors of the paper, so ether the authors are wrong or hack is wrong……who do you think is wrong?....

So do you grant that the universe* had a beginning? (yes or no)


*we are using the term universe in the same way the author of the paper is


Or should I use technical terms?; do you garnt that the universe is past geodesically incomplete?.

 

[leroy]

he_who_is_nobody
Our observable universe, which is what that paper is talking about had a beginning?

By the way, if you admit that you are wrong, you will show that you do accept corrections from theists and you will show that I was wrong when I affirmed that you dont ......


The author mentions by name, models that assume the existence of other worlds and models that assume a “before the big bang” and he concludes that even those models imply a beginning.

He is clearly talking about the entire cosmos and not just the observable universe.

Are you going to accept this correction? Are you going to admit your mistake?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wrong, the paper talks about the entire universe including “non observable regions” and including other parallel worlds that, might exist.

Says you. The person that cannot pars basic physics.

The point of the author of the paper is that even if there was something before the big bang, there was a beginning.
The author even uses the technical term “past incomplete” to prevent the kind of stupid semantic games that you are trying to play

Yet, I already agreed that our observable universe had a beginning.

Hack manifestly and unambiguously affirmed that he disagrees with the authors of the paper, so ether the authors are wrong or hack is wrong……who do you think is wrong?....

If I had to pick, it would be the authors. However, I doubt that is the case. Again, you are saying this, and you are rarely correct about anything you pontificate about.

So do you grant that the universe* had a beginning? (yes or no)


*we are using the term universe in the same way the author of the paper is

I already answered that. Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered? What is the poit of that?

Or should I use technical terms?; do you garnt that the universe is past geodesically incomplete?.

Use whatever terms you want. I already answered that question.

he_who_is_nobody
Our observable universe, which is what that paper is talking about had a beginning?

By the way, if you admit that you are wrong, you will show that you do accept corrections from theists and you will show that I was wrong when I affirmed that you dont ......

First, you would have to be right about something. Beyond that, I have already accepted a corrections from you. Thus, you were wrong in your assertion that I do not accept corrections from theists.

The author mentions by name, models that assume the existence of other worlds and models that assume a “before the big bang” and he concludes that even those models imply a beginning.

He is clearly talking about the entire cosmos and not just the observable universe.

Again, says you, and you cannot pars basic physics.

Are you going to accept this correction? Are you going to admit your mistake?

What mistake? The fact that you do not understand what is being discussed in a physics paper? How is that my mistake?

 

[leroy]

Says you. The person that cannot pars basic physics.

Again you are wrong, the author is manifestly talking about the all universe (including all time) the author even makes an extra effort to clarify that point.

Everybody knew since the beginning of last century that the observable universe had a beginning, why would someone publish an article in 2012 that concludes something was already known decades ago?
Hackenslash manifestly disagrees with the authors. So you do have to pick. ether Hackenslash is wrong or the authors are wrong.

BTW, do you really believe that Hackenslash doesn’t grant that the observable universe had a beginning? If not then why would Hackenslash disagree with the paper

Yet, I already agreed that our observable universe had a beginning.

Good for you, but that was not my question

If I had to pick, it would be the authors. However, I doubt that is the case. Again, you are saying this, and you are rarely correct about anything you pontificate about.

you do have to pick

hackenslash wrote:

. Also, Vilenkin is wrong (the author of the paper), and running much further with the evidence than is warranted. I'm fully cognisant of his work, considerably more than you are. This is directly in my wheelhouse, while yours consists of.. what, exactly?

Ok I would have preferred a clear yes or no. but apparently (correct me if I am wrong) you are granting the conclusions of the paper.
Which means that you grant that the universe is “past geodesically incomplete” which implies that you grant premise 2 in the KCA.

First, you would have to be right about something. Beyond that, I have already accepted a corrections from you. Thus, you were wrong in your assertion that I do not accept corrections from theists.

That is true, I was wrong, you now have the opportunity to accept an other correction from me….do you accept that the paper is not talking about only the observable universe, but the whole universe (and time)

 

[leroy]

Says you. The person that cannot pars basic physics.

If I ever made an assertion that was wrong, can you please copy-paste my actual words and my actual assertion and explain why it is wrong? You are linking to a long post with many assertions, and I honestly have no idea which part do you consider to be wrong

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Says you. The person that cannot pars basic physics.

Again you are wrong, the author is manifestly talking about the all universe (including all time) the author even makes an extra effort to clarify that point.

Correct. I was wrong.

Everybody knew since the beginning of last century that the observable universe had a beginning, why would someone publish an article in 2012 that concludes something was already known decades ago?
Hackenslash manifestly disagrees with the authors. So you do have to pick. ether Hackenslash is wrong or the authors are wrong.

As I already said, I pick hackenslash.

BTW, do you really believe that Hackenslash doesn’t grant that the observable universe had a beginning? If not then why would Hackenslash disagree with the paper

I agree with hackenslash.

Yet, I already agreed that our observable universe had a beginning.

Good for you, but that was not my question

The paper says there is a beginning to our Universe, however, I agree with hackenslash.

If I had to pick, it would be the authors. However, I doubt that is the case. Again, you are saying this, and you are rarely correct about anything you pontificate about.

you do have to pick

hackenslash wrote:

. Also, Vilenkin is wrong (the author of the paper), and running much further with the evidence than is warranted. I'm fully cognisant of his work, considerably more than you are. This is directly in my wheelhouse, while yours consists of.. what, exactly?

There we have it. I agree with hackenslash.

Ok I would have preferred a clear yes or no. but apparently (correct me if I am wrong) you are granting the conclusions of the paper.
Which means that you grant that the universe is “past geodesically incomplete” which implies that you grant premise 2 in the KCA.

Wrong. I agree with hackenslash. Beyond that, even if I did not agree with him. Who cares if one premise from an already debunked logical syllogism's premise is correct?

First, you would have to be right about something. Beyond that, I have already accepted a corrections from you. Thus, you were wrong in your assertion that I do not accept corrections from theists.

That is true, I was wrong, you now have the opportunity to accept an other correction from me….do you accept that the paper is not talking about only the observable universe, but the whole universe (and time)

Yes, and I accept that the paper is wrong.