It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Only Way God is Real.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


I never said "something can't come out of nothing, so god created it".

Show me were I did. All I said is that asking who created the creator is also a fallacy.


You still haven't read my long post, have you? Sigh.


How can I communicate with you if you can't go past your preconceptions about me?


Are you one of these people who think either he is right and others are wrong, either the opposite, but it's never a problem of definition and understanding? Because it's really not fun to discuss with such people.
edit on 7-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: GetHyped


I never said "something can't come out of nothing, so god created it".

Show me were I did. All I said is that asking who created the creator is also a fallacy.


Explain how asking who created the creator is a logical fallacy.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts


Also the singularity only concerns our current local and observable universe. It says nothing about what was going on around it.

Yes, these are my thoughts as well, but I will say that I think it's probable to suggest that those Universes outside our own have been occuring in there own 'big bangs' since infinity.
I know it's hard to grasp for us mere mortals whose lives are ruled by beginnings and endings, to suggest there may be no beginning and no end is way too mind blowing to even begin to understand.
Is that possible? We are just one Universe, like many, just like the galaxies, we just can't see the forest for the trees.

originally posted by: GetHyped



SpaceGoatsFarts --->There is no need to invoke it, but asking who created the creator doesn't disprove it neither.



It's not about disproving. How can you disprove something that can't even be tested, like the invisible demon in my sockdraw? The point is to show the fallacious logic in that line of reasoning.

The creators have been around forever IMO, we call them Universes. I always capitalise the 'U' in Universe, the Universe created us.
The Universe is my 'god' and it don't give a crap about you, me or anybody, but it made us.
Thanks!

edit on 7-5-2014 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2014 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: GetHyped


I never said "something can't come out of nothing, so god created it".

Show me were I did. All I said is that asking who created the creator is also a fallacy.


Explain how asking who created the creator is a logical fallacy.


Because the creator as defined by religious people is eternal. We are going in circles anyway because next you'll tell me a creator isn't needed to explain the world. And that would be true too. But it would still not settle that it's impossible for a creator to exist. I'm saying this debate is sterile, do you have a problem understanding that or do you want to keep going in circles?

You think logic can prove god doesn't exist but it can't. It's only that occam's razor suggest that it's not likely, but certainly not impossible.


Also nice job saying I called someone stupid when I said the argument is stupid.

good job twisting my words.


And I bet you still haven't read the post where I explain my views.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
The reason we aren't advancing, but are devolving into stupid little idiots is because under the heading God there isn't the simple statement, "Nobody knows, it's all best guess so best let's focus on other stuff".

That should be on every page of any text, anywhere that mentions God.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


I don't think you understand how logic works.


edit on 7-5-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund

The Universe is my 'god' and it don't give a crap about you, me or anybody, but it made us.
Thanks!


That's my position too (pantheism) but when I say something like that atheists usually get all butthurt and scream "but you can't call the universe God! You have to call it the universe!!!!!".


That's why I'm saying until atheists and religious both learn to listen instead of always talking, nothing good comes out of such discussions. They could maybe seek where they agree instead of where they disagree (usually interpretation of words).
edit on 7-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Because you're watering down definitions to the point of meaningless.

My dog is God. Do you accept my dog as your new monodeity?
edit on 7-5-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


I don't think you understand how logic works.



Logic certainly can't work on hypothesis that can't be tested. Thus it's pointless to use logic to debate god.

Have you read my original post or are you just so certain you are right and everyone else is wrong or doesn't understand how logic works?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Because you're watering down definitions to the point of meaningless.

My dog is God. Do you accept my dog as your new monodeity?


Your dog isn't eternal.


Atheists really are butthurt when you call the universe God.

Of course it's a problem of definition Sherlock, that's what explain since my first post you haven't even read. Only you can decide the correct interpretation of the word god now?

God as the universe is very old and common, it's pantheism and monism. This definition is thousands of years old.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


I don't think you understand how logic works.



Logic certainly can't work on hypothesis that can't be tested.


Logic works on arguments. Creationist arguments are fallacious. Arguments for the existence of god are fallacious. You are the last one to be calling people "stupid" for pointing out fallacious arguments when you struggle employing logic yourself.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Because you're watering down definitions to the point of meaningless.

My dog is God. Do you accept my dog as your new monodeity?


Your dog isn't eternal.



Prove it.
edit on 7-5-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Because you're watering down definitions to the point of meaningless.

My dog is God. Do you accept my dog as your new monodeity?


Your dog isn't eternal.




Prove it.




Now you are being facetious.

Seriously, butthurt atheists are as funny as butthurt fundies.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

At least I can provide objective evidence for the existence of my dog.

Prove my dog isn't eternal.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


I don't think you understand how logic works.



Logic certainly can't work on hypothesis that can't be tested.


Logic works on arguments. Creationist arguments are fallacious. Arguments for the existence of god are fallacious. You are the last one to be calling people "stupid" for pointing out fallacious arguments when you struggle employing logic yourself.


I never called anyone stupid. You twist my words again.

You have proven yourself to be a liar and unable to listen to what others say if it doesn't fit 100% your little views.

I'm out.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

At least I can provide objective evidence for the existence of my dog.

Prove my dog isn't eternal.


[shoots your dog]

There, your dog is dead.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

She's sat on my lap right now. Still appears live and well.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

She's sat on my lap right now. Still appears live and well.



You win the internet.

Bravo.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: colbe


Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.


Speaking for myself, of course, I usually base my thoughts on something a little more concrete than purely the insides of my skull. Like, say, physical reality. You know, that thing my thoughts had no part in creating, generating, producing, etc. So if it's happening outside of my head, then there's no reason to distrust my thoughts for reflecting it, right?

I have a hard time believing C.S. Lewis came up with a stupid argument like that.
edit on 7-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I agree an omnipotent omipresent god cannot be tested for..... Yet. However , you can check the bibles creation tale and other historical markers in the book.... Guess what ? It doesn't match up with reality. So you can't disprove the concept, but you can prove it's no infallible or a history book.
edit on 7-5-2014 by ArtemisE because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join