Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

a reply to: boymonkey74

You misplaced my sarcasm along the way...

Whether one believes in creation, as a matter of faith or not is just that a matter of faith. It can't be proven, by design.

Yes, we are good, bad and everything between.

In the end it will be the "why" that is most important...

a reply to: moebius

We don't know. The OP only shows up periodically to complain, then leaves again without really saying much of anything...I took away my flag due to this annoyance.

i have a child. i created that child for no other reason than i wanted to. i have no other purpose or plan for her life other than to amuse me.

i provide everything for her. she relies on me for everything in her life.

to her i have no beginning and no end. i have always been, and always will be.

to her, i am a god.

this is why the majority of people believe in a god. as children they have this idea of an all encompassing something, that provides everything, even life. at first it is their parents, but at some point their parents let them down, so they take that idea and magnify it. they transfer it from their parents to some nebulous other. a god.

some of these people then make up stories to explain what they cant explain. they create a religion out of them, and teach their children these stories and reinforce the idea of a god, which is the transference of an infantile mindset.

think about santa clause. as a child you really believed he existed. then you find out that it was just your parents all along. but what if you had a whole bunch of people that still believed in santa and told you he was actually real (read these stories), and that your parents were just acting in the name of santa? the church of santa is born.

this explanation is paraphrased from a treatise written by jung, btw.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is a hypothesis considered by scientists. Maybe not all of them, but there are most definitely scientists out there that are perfectly comfortable with the notion of a creator.

The reason science can't deal with the issue as a whole is because it deals with understanding the material universe. How is a discipline based entirely on the material universe supposed to deal with a concept that is by definition immaterial?

It is not hypothesized that there is a god. A hypothesis must be falsifiable and theology cannot be quantified.

Sort of like the notion of a holographic universe, a simulation, or a multiverse is quantifiable?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Falsifiable is not the same thing as quantifiable.
The math for string "theory" works fine. There's just no way to test it.

Our ability to perceive is limited.
The concept of Dark Matter highlights our limitations.
Consciousness.
We do not perceive our surroundings by examining the space between atoms, even though they are there, that reality is not apparent nor is it important to consciously perceive our existence.

Why should we have the ability to consciously perceive a Creator?

The Creator would not be made of stardust because we know there was a time when the universe did not even have stars. We will never be able to point and unveil the Creator from some observatory.

There would be no way to consciously perceive such a Creator unless the Creator reached out with the power to be perceived.

One cannot prove there is no creator. That genie can never go back in the bottle. Inanimate star dust became conscious, looked around, and found itself lacking. The Atheist somehow believes they have evolved beyond that, when really it is a devolved state from the animal kingdom, before any animal had the ability of abstract thought.

a reply to: Phage

The same could be said for anyone plucking numbers out of thin air to prove that Obama is the Antichrist. Their math might check out.

Do you not see the irony in suggesting a God is a ridiculous cause to the universe, but we live in a multiverse, simulation, or even a hologram when none of these things can be verified?

How does one prove something that is faith based? Why would someone with faith want proof? In my experiences those who seek "proof" lack "faith", and so I think the OP is truly lacking faith since it seems he is searching for proof....

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Do you not see the irony in suggesting a God is a ridiculous cause to the universe, but we live in a multiverse, simulation, or even a hologram when none of these things can be verified?

Yes.
Who said God is ridiculous?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Konduit

So by your logic, not believing something exists is absolutely different then believing that something does not exist.

Yes, obviously. But I don't "believe" God doesn't exist.

I guess your finally admitting that your not a textbook atheist. You can use all the word gymnastics you want, but are you trying to convince me or yourself? This is entertaining.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How does one prove something that is faith based? Why would someone with faith want proof? In my experiences those who seek "proof" lack "faith", and so I think the OP is truly lacking faith since it seems he is searching for proof....

God isn't faith based, but faith is required to believe in him/it/her. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, so clearly, physical evidence will never come to pass, unless he/she/it decides it to be so.

Once again, I believe there is a reason that God doesn't WANT to be proven. God WANTS a leap of faith. That doesn't make a LICK of sense on the scientific level, at least right now, but that's what I believe.

a reply to: Wookiep

even though you may not be particularly fond of drummers.

But some of my best friends are drummers... no, come back!

a reply to: Phage

I guess your finally admitting that your not a textbook Atheist.

I've said I don't believe in God. Quite unequivocally. If you think a "textbook atheist" (no need to capitalize it) is something else, that's your problem. The "urban dictionary" is not exactly a textbook, btw, anymore than wikipedia is an encylopedia.

Urban Dictionary is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words and phrases that was founded in 1999 as a parody of Dictionary.com by then-college freshman Aaron Peckham.

You can use all the word gymnastics you want, but are you trying to convince me or yourself?

I know what I believe in. You haven't convinced me that a lack of belief equals a belief.

a reply to: Phage

Merriam-Webster - Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist.

Not a textbook atheist Just a troll with a large vocabulary.

"I believe the boogeyman doesn't exist, so I don't believe in the boogeyman."

originally posted by: Wookiep
Once again, I believe there is a reason that God doesn't WANT to be proven. God WANTS a leap of faith. That doesn't make a LICK of sense on the scientific level, at least right now, but that's what I believe.

Psalm 91:7, 91:8, King James Bible
91:7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
91:8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

originally posted by: Wookiep
God isn't faith based, but faith is required to believe in him/it/her.

I lost you there.... You have faith in God, your strong faith is all you need as proof, what other proof is there?

a reply to: Konduit

Here let me help you. You see there are actual words/definitions for these things.

I will explain it in a way a total moron can comprehend.


Test for theism or atheism:

Do you believe in a deity or deities?

Yes = Theist

No = Atheist

How certain are you?

Completely certain = Gnostic Theist/Atheist

Less than completely certain = Agnostic Theist/Atheist




Simple

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Konduit

So by your logic, not believing something exists is absolutely different then believing that something does not exist.

Yes, obviously. But I don't "believe" God doesn't exist.

I guess your finally admitting that your not a textbook atheist. You can use all the word gymnastics you want, but are you trying to convince me or yourself? This is entertaining.

Any one who looks at things from a scientific view wouldn't be an athiest. If say agnostic is more appropriate at least for me. See an agnostic looks at it like their is no proof God exists. They would also say their is no proof God doesn't exist. Then the third part comes in they say that either answer doesn't matter or change the universe in any way.

So like all things involving faith wither you believe God exists or you don't and in the case of agnostics they'll listen to an argument if you present them with. Proof they'll go ok their is a God. But until that day they are more than happy with the wonders of the universe and dont require God to exist.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wookiep
God isn't faith based, but faith is required to believe in him/it/her.

I lost you there.... You have faith in God, your strong faith is all you need as proof, what other proof is there?

You got it. There is no other proof. That's the point. God isn't designed to make sense, at least on this plane, right at this moment. It's no wonder so many people doubt God's existence, and that's the way it is supposed to be, right now at least.

This is of course, my own opinion even though I'm sure it sounds totally batty to modern sience. I have no proof to give and neither does the OP. All I have are my own personal experiences, but who is going to believe hearsay? I wouldn't.