Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:09:47 GMT
Bellatori says:
Mr Paul Davidson says: "the humble atheist cannot even make an atom, an ant or an atheist... let alone an intelligible universe with its intelligible laws... causing its intelligible evolution."

You must have an inexhaustible supply of flagpoles because you repeat this interminably and no matter that each time it is debunked you still hope that by running it up a new flagpole someone will salute it.

Has it not occurred to you that repetition is not equivalent to truth or correctness?

If you write "I believe in God" you are fireproof. An atheist might chose to say it is a false belief but, again as I have said before, the assertion the "God exists" or the opposite are not provable. You are entitled to respect for your faith.

If you write "I believe in God because..." you are equally entitled to expect to be challenged. You are making a statement that implies evidential validity. It is provable or otherwise. So when you write "He always Was, Is and always Will Be. So, obviously, He existed before the universe" you should expect the response that you got "...conjecture" when you get all mystical and start avoiding anything approaching a fact that is tangible.
In order to win (or at least survive) in an argument it also helps if you don't make assertions that are not merely challenge-able but palpably wrong. It makes any other argument you put forward pointless and makes you look foolish. For example...

"'The idea, remember was to show not only that the universe was a result of an act of creation but also that it *must* have been performed by your god.' (and you responded) You have no alternative".

Well, of course, you are only too well aware that we do as noted above. This has been debunked more often than I care to remember in these forums. Its just that you seem to think ignoring unpalatable facts is a way to proceed in a discussion.

I hope these few pointers will help you move forward in your contributions to this forum.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:19:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 13:19:51 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul - 'Hi Karen, relatively soon, there is a chance that anti-biotics will cease to be effective. That might give the myth followers the opportunity to prove prayer works as well as anti-biotics did. Personally I scares the hell out of me. Science has given us control over ourselves and death that previous generations could only dream of.'

So, you are saying that antibiotics have saved millions of lives, and this control over ourselves and death was dreamed of by previous generations? Quite right. The fact that it scares you speaks volumes about your state of mind, nothing else.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:30:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 13:59:24 GMT
Drew Jones says:
What would be the point in explaining it again? You know nothing of democracy, your leaders are appointed without your input and you only have a single candidate to everything you try to explain. You don't have the means to appriciate the nuances of the subject such is the determined answers your religion has imposed on you that limit possibilities. Any freewill you had you handed over to the church.

Keep insisting the world around you is in error, doesn't turn your wishes into fact.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 13:44:23 GMT
K. Hoyles says:

Quite!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:47:40 GMT
Theists DO question what they read in the Bible. The Bible gives us an account of what has happened going back to the original man, he the Bible says spoke daily to God, which gives credibility to it.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:49:05 GMT
Hi Karen

I think you should be addressing your post to Clive...

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:51:04 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul - why are you copying posts onto another thread - have I missed something?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 13:57:09 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul -I thought it was too coherent coming from you!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:02:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 14:10:26 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 14:04:15 GMT
K. Hoyles says:

I'm totally confused - why are posts being copied onto another thread? I'm not sure any more who has written what. Please stop.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 14:08:14 GMT
Hi Karen

Sorry about the confusion.

I simply believe it is best to have the contributions all on one thread.

You will see that I do acknowledge the source in each case, at the start of the post.

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 14:08:27 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
I've reported Paul for causing confusion by copying posts onto another thread.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:10:30 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul - 'I simply believe it is best to have the contributions all on one thread.'

Then please do so.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:16:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 17:01:06 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
John P Clarke,

You wrote, "Theists DO question what they read in the Bible. "

and also,

" The Bible gives us an account of what has happened going back to the original man, he the Bible says spoke daily to God, which gives credibility to it."

This is not questioning the bible. It is acceptance. And the idea that the bible can be given credibility by the contents of the bible is faulty thinking.

If anything, stories of "the original man" speaking to "God" lends credence to the idea that the bible is a fix-up fantasy novel.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:17:41 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Your question are looking for confirmation of your contradictory beliefs not a discussion so I'll stick to what suits me as you push through with your agenda.

To that end, libertarian freewill is required for democracy as we understand it. That single point of agreement doesn't lead to all you conclusions as you think. It's not beside the point to note that you believe in things that contradict your idea of freewill along your way to your conclusio and neither is it irrelevsnt to mention that you consent to an organisation that is non-democratic.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:18:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 14:21:33 GMT
Hi Karen

The thread is:

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)

You started a new one:

God does not exist

And incorrectly labelled it (4)

I hope you will agree that it is best for all if we stick with the original and more accurate title.

Best wishes

Paul

P.S. When I say 'more accurate,' I mean that there have already been 30,000+ posts under this title, and not under the other.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:21:40 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul - agreed, but that doesn't mean you can repeat posts on both threads. A pointless and confusing activity. Why not just use one or the other?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:23:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 14:30:34 GMT
Hi Karen

Agreed.

Please can we use the original title... with the accurate (4).

Again, my apologies for the confusion.

Best wishes

Paul

P.S. I hope you saw my PS in my previous post to you.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:24:55 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
I've no preference re the title.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:28:47 GMT
Hi Karen

Thank you most sincerely.

I would be most grateful to you if you would try to persuade your fellow atheists on the forum to now post on:

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)

Again, many thanks for your kind understanding.

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:33:28 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"When I say 'more accurate,' I mean that there have already been 30,000+ posts under this title"
Only if you count repetition as a new post, without that the new thread could easily over take it in numbers, might have even done it.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 14:33:41 GMT
Norm Deplume says:

Hi Paul,

You latest post reads:

' We do not "see," in the normal sense of the word, either Jesus Christ
' or His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the physical universe.
' Nevertheless He and His Mother do, from time to time, appear and
' converse to privileged members of the Church that He founded.

This would be in the physical universe, however you misuse "see". Not only have you failed to show how non-physical intelligence can exist you have not even attempted to. Furthermore, you have once again ignored the premise that all things in the physical universe must have a cause. You are doing a great job of undermining your own assertions.

' In the same way we do not "see," in the normal sense of the word,
' Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No, we do not see these imaginary creatures in any sense of the word. (Sorry I meant to write Imaginary Creatures so you can understand.)

' Anyway, Almighty God, apart from in His Divine Son Jesus Christ,
' God made man, is Spirit, so you could hardly expect to "see" Him,
' in the normal sense of the word.

I don't expect to "see" Imaginary Creatures at all in any sense. You need to explain what you mean by "Spirit", with particular regard to how it can be recognised and detected.

' To my:
' God is everywhere both in and out of the physical universe.
' You replied:
' >>> How would you know?
' Because, through His Divine Son Jesus Christ, He has told us so.

And I now repeat an earlier question, "Why do you think Jesus was divine?"

' 'He always Was, Is and always Will Be. So, obviously, He existed before the
' universe, which He alone created at the Big Bang. Its intelligible matter or
' energy evolved according to His wondrous intelligible laws.'
' >>> An unproven conjecture.

' Proven by the Divine Jesus Christ Himself.

And I now repeat an earlier question, "Why do you think Jesus was divine?"
[Incidentally, you don't need to write "Divine" Jesus: most people can work out you mean Yeshua bin Yussuf and not Jesus Alou, the former Major League outfielder.]

' >>> The idea, remember was to show not only that the universe was a result of an act of
' creation but also that it *must* have been performed by your god.
' You have no alternative.

I do. My alternative is: the universe was not created by your god.
Show your reasoning. It should be really easy if you have no alternative.

'>>> To do that you must show reasons (bot beliefs) why it could not
' have been Bob the Universe Builder..

' As I have said before on this forum, you can call Almighty Intelligent
' God... or a humble atheist, for that matter: "Bob the Universe Builder...
' " It is simply quirky terminology.

No. God is not a synonym for Bob the Universe Builder. Bob is not all mighty, or omnipresent, or omniscient, or any other of the attributes that have been attached to Jehovah. The only ability is that of being able to build universes. That is why I mentioned him. If you think I am referring to God, then your argument fails immediately.

' The difference is that Almighty God has actually done it
' (and continues to do it by His Almighty Will)...

You can continue to believe that but it has no bearing on your claim that (your particular) God *must* exist. Empty and irrelevant assertions do not support that in any way.

' the humble atheist cannot even make an atom, an ant or an atheist...
' let alone an intelligible universe with its intelligible laws...
' causing its intelligible evolution. ...

No. That would be Bob the Universe Builder. I think you'll find that similar restrictions apply to all members of Homo sapiens regardless of belief or non-belief.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:36:02 GMT
Hi Drew

I can't accuse you of fudge there!

And you made me smile too.

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 14:41:51 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Paul - 'I would be most grateful to you if you would try to persuade your fellow atheists on the forum to now post on:

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)'

I believe they can work that one out for themselves.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 14:44:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 14:46:56 GMT
Bellatori says:
I have just voted as boring and pointless Paul's latest harangue. He is trying to bash Drew over free will and Democracy when he hasn't been able to answer the conundrum of reconciling God as all knowing and the consequent predestination and on the other hand free will. All those long diatribes are predicated on an un-addressed and IMHO unsupportable assumption that the two are not contradictory.

I wonder whether he read my last post or was it just another of those difficult things he has to ignore.

What is with his obsession with sugar based confectionery?

Anyway,, my recommendation to all is that until he does address this point there is little to be gained by responding to his long repeatedly copied and pasted waffle.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  64
Total posts:  3185
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  27 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions