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.

 

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

page: 26
36
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Is that the "they" that say ignorance is bliss? And we're "they" talking about you?
What's it like to be so proud of yourself for such little effort?
Or was that you pleading for the acceptance of others who believe in nothing?
It all true the things "they" say "they" also say misery loves company, while it's ok to be a sceptic
It's not wise to pretend to be smart...




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Sorry that I have taken long to reply I had to go to sleep and I wanted to wait until there were some more questions. Here are some answers to questions you asked.

Part 1:



a reply to: Cuervo

It matters very much. Because if you just believe there is a God and you can't verify to yourself then maybe your wasting your entire life and if you don't and can't verify it to yourself again you might be wasting your entire life's purpose.

a reply to: Cuervo

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. How can there be an unlimited creator that always existed along with a limited universe which has always existed. According to your model this universe was not created and is not sustained by the creator. If so what power limited this universe? This power would have to be less limited then the universe and if this power is not unlimited then it would also have to have a limiter until you have to come to an unlimited limiter. According to this you would have to have two unlimited creators which would be impossible since you would enter the following paradox if you say so: if both creators are unlimited then they would have to have the power to limit each other. If one of them where able to do so to the other then the other would not be unlimited because he can be limited and if they can't limit each other then they are limited. In conclusion you would have to have one single unlimited creator.
Regarding what you said

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
there is no contradiction. This is speaking about existing energy in the universe which was brought into existence. Because how could energy which is limited be existing without a limiter and so on...

a reply to: Cuervo

Again not making a lot of sense. First of all, our consciousness is something very limited. Second your definitions are wrong. The definition of omnipresent is "being present everywhere at the same time" not "being present itself", and omnipotent is "having unlimited power; able to do anything" not "the allowance for anything to be thought of".

a reply to: Gryphon66

Many people here are saying "oh your saying I am bias but I actually came from being religious (as mentioned above usually from christianity) to being atheist, but that is exactly being bias. When you approach the question of whether there is a God you bring along with you all the christian understanding of God as understood in chistianity. To truly approach the question you have to throw all that away and ask the question from a truly unbiased perspective.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Check out this video:


a reply to: dragonridr

God cannot exist within time because time is a limitation as you said


He would need time to create the universe.

and God is unlimited. He has to exist beyond the realm of time because whatever exists in the realm of time has to have a cause preceding it and it is impossible that god be preceded by an earlier cause because then there would be an infinite loop which is impossible to exist.
Yet as you have asked how


If time didn't exist then how could a God exist?

The answer is God is a level of existence which is the opposite of existence. Anything in creation including our speculations can never possibly conceive what was before. We exist in creation, God therefore is a type of anti-creation. In a manner of speaking God was nothing before creation. Within the nothing arose a desire for God for creation. This raises a number of questions. God is infinite. He has no boundaries. He is the most pure form of consistent unchanging simplicity. How then could a desire arise? This would imply change. And there can be no change in an unchanging simple nothing. So what does it mean that there arose a desire? How long was God around before it finally dawned upon Him to create the universe? Its a trick question being that time only came into existence with the beginning of creation as you have said.

God in the beginning is nothing. The ultimate zero. Yet zero maintains a property unique from any other number. It exists before all positive integers and it exists after all negative integers. In essence zero is not nothing it is in the middle between positive and negative. So the universe was created in zero time. Time started to tick immediately with the big bang. When this occurred is a question that can only be asked within the context of time which at that time did not exist. So when did God create the universe? The answer is "when there arose a desire." And what does it mean to have a desire in an unchanging essence? It means that the desire was not an aspect of change. In other words for God to have a "desire" means that such a desire is an essential aspect of the unchanging nothing. This would seem to be a process of transformation. For when nothing becomes something this indeed does manifest an essential change in original nature. Or does it?

When we are dealing with "nothing" we are dealing with laws of nature which are totally unknown and unknowable to us.
Nothing and something desire and non desire appear to us in creation as irreconcilable opposites. Yet within an existence of "nothing" where the laws of its nature are possible to be the opposite of everything that we understand, opposites can indeed be one unchanging whole. Indeed all forces in creation however different they may appear to us are essentially one and the same. This is the unity of God.

So when did the desire arise in God? It did not happen in time. It happened out of time. As such the arising desire in God is happening now! Creation is beginning now! Not in creation but outside of it. Inside creation we recognize the beginning as having happened. Outside creation, creation is beginning just now and will always be beginning just now. In essence creation and anti-creation, God before creation and after the creation is still all one concentric whole. We just don’t see it. Existence is an integral part of nonexistence. Yet they are both parts of a greater whole. It is only in the realm of something that opposites exist and have contradictory meaning. Only in creation can we perceive of a Creator and creation. Yet outside of creation where all is nothing all opposites are integrated. Diversity is therefore simply an illusion. Thus even the place of creation is as much in God as everything else. God is still unchanged by all that exists in the universe which exists within it. For as far as creation expands outward its inevitable conclusion is to contract inwards back into God. In essence creation is nothing more than a Divine "breath". Exhale and there is creation. Inhale and all returns within. Even the concepts of "in" and out" are superfluous and imaginary at the level of God.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Part 2:



a reply to: tubbytick



How could something physical and limited exist without there being a cause for its existence? Yet how could there be a god if no body created him? Both dont make a lot of sense but you have to agree that these are the only two possibilities. What makes more sense? Limited quantity of existence that always existed without anything limiting its quantity of existence, existing without anything making it exist, and eventually developing and changing itself from simple into being more complex or that there exists an unlimited creator whose above any physicality and time who brought limited existence from non existence and makes the entire creation exist?


a reply to: Barcs



How could something physical and limited exist without there being a cause for its existence? Yet how could there be a god if no body created him? Both dont make a lot of sense but you have to agree that these are the only two possibilities. What makes more sense? Limited quantity of existence that always existed without anything limiting its quantity of existence, existing without anything making it exist, and eventually developing and changing itself from simple into being more complex or that there exists an unlimited creator whose above any physicality and time who brought limited existence from non existence and makes the entire creation exist?


As for


1. Evidence for the universe being eternal. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I addressed this in another question I will quote the whole answer so the context be understood.


What you are saying doesn't make any sense. How can there be an unlimited creator that always existed along with a limited universe which has always existed. According to your model this universe was not created and is not sustained by the creator. If so what power limited this universe? This power would have to be less limited then the universe and if this power is not unlimited then it would also have to have a limiter until you have to come to an unlimited limiter. According to this you would have to have two unlimited creators which would be impossible since you would enter the following paradox if you say so: if both creators are unlimited then they would have to have the power to limit each other. If one of them where able to do so to the other then the other would not be unlimited because he can be limited and if they can't limit each other then they are limited. In conclusion you would have to have one single unlimited creator.
Regarding what you said

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed
there is no contradiction. This is speaking about existing energy in the universe which was brought into existence. Because how could energy which is limited be existing without a limiter and so on...




I addressed this earlier here is a quote:


Many people here are saying "oh your saying I am bias but I actually came from being religious (as mentioned above usually from christianity) to being atheist, but that is exactly being bias. When you approach the question of whether there is a God you bring along with you all the christian understanding of God as understood in chistianity. To truly approach the question you have to throw all that away and ask the question from a truly unbiased perspective.



a reply to: kellyjay



How could something physical and limited exist without there being a cause for its existence? Yet how could there be a god if no body created him? Both dont make a lot of sense but you have to agree that these are the only two possibilities. What makes more sense? Limited quantity of existence that always existed without anything limiting its quantity of existence, existing without anything making it exist, and eventually developing and changing itself from simple into being more complex or that there exists an unlimited creator whose above any physicality and time who brought limited existence from non existence and makes the entire creation exist?


a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not talking about a God in the context of a religion. That would be bias. Simply the creator of all.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o



How could something physical and limited exist without there being a cause for its existence? Yet how could there be a god if no body created him? Both dont make a lot of sense but you have to agree that these are the only two possibilities. What makes more sense? Limited quantity of existence that always existed without anything limiting its quantity of existence, existing without anything making it exist, and eventually developing and changing itself from simple into being more complex or that there exists an unlimited creator whose above any physicality and time who brought limited existence from non existence and makes the entire creation exist?


a reply to: toktaylor

I will answer you with a story. Once a person came to a sage and asked him "How can God exist if we cant see him?" so told him "go outside and look at the sun" he answered him "how can I possibly look at the sun it will burn my eyes!" so he told him "you fool! you cant even look at the sun and you want to see its creator?!"

a reply to: Indigo5

The void, although a void, is still limited existence and not absolute nothing. Let me edit an earlier answer that I answered which will answer you. "According to you this void was not created and is not sustained by a creator. This void is limited and not infinite. If so what power limited this void? This power would have to be less limited then the void and if this power is not unlimited then it would also have to have a limiter until you have to come to an unlimited limiter."

And regarding


Also you premise of there being a necessary beginning is an idea based in time and space being on a linear continuum.

I answered that in my previous post check it out if you haven't already.
edit on 8/4/2015 by arimass101 because: fix



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101

You are just maki8ng assumptions that suit your argument, and then answering thm - this is called the strawman logical fallacy.

Here is a couple of examples:


According to your model this universe was not created and is not sustained by the creator. If so what power limited this universe? This power would have to be less limited then the universe and if this power is not unlimited then it would also have to have a limiter until you have to come to an unlimited limiter.


Why would "the power" have to be "less limited than the universe"? (what comes after that is just nonsense sorry)



He has to exist beyond the realm of time because whatever exists in the realm of time has to have a cause preceding it .....


Who says the universe was created "in the realm of time"?

There is nothing wrong with not knowing how the universe was created.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

We do not know all the "laws of the universe" - so it is wrong to say that something "goes against all the laws of the universe" - right there your argument is shot to pieces.

Oh this is fun



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101

I have never seen anyone write so much and say so little. All you did is post conjecture. In fact the district didn't even a dress anything people asked. So let's make this real simple to start.

If God created the universe and set up laws to govern it. God himself would be bound by those rules. The reason is failure to follow the rules leads to the destruction of the universe he supposedly created. So that being said if God doesn't interfere with the universe, than is there any difference from him not existing?

Next if God exists and everything is contained in our universe because it has to be. This is probably confusing for you but there is huge problem of the universe being infinite meaning there never truly is something outside. That being said where is he? He would have to be somewhere.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Or she.......or even "it" - who says god has a penis??



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: arimass101
Over the years I came to the conclusion that the knowledge that there exists a creator to the world (with all the details below. Scroll down to see what I mean) is extremely simple and any thinking human whose brain is functioning normally will come to that very conclusion.

The obvious question is why does such a large quantity of people in the world, so many people of all generations among them genius minds of big scientists and philosophers deny that fact?



>I have come to the conclusion
>"I"
>somehow this is fact

also

2nd paragraph, following the example set forth by the first paragraph, continues to droll on about facts that have yet to be produced.

The following 8 paragraphs continue along this line, producing no facts, no firsthand experience(s), no personal eyewitness testimony or even spiritual encounter, virtually nothing but a giant wall of text that blabs on about your personal theories.

What is there to debate? First off, if you need to debate something with us, then you clearly have no facts to preclude a fact-based opinion, meaning your first two paragraphs are complete garbage. You will be given the exact same treatment as UFO experiencers.

Unless you have solid evidence, a reliable first hand divine experience, and/or physical, video or photographic evidence of the divine, you're just another nutty tinfoiler who somehow escaped the mental facility.

Once you have some actual grounds for your faith, then you might have a debate whether your delusion is real or not.

We'll begin once you have observable evidence.
edit on 4-8-2015 by yourignoranceisbliss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

When you consider some transplants take on the characteristics of the donor, that makes perfect sense.

I know I read something recently about memory cells being past on to offspring.


I have actually been reading on memory cell and it's such a fascinating topic! There is so much that we still don't know and we seem to learn something new everyday!

Back to the OP: you still haven't proved that God is real.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
We can all go round after round after round on this topic. When it's all been said, we will still be in the same spot as where we started.

NOBODY can or will ever "prove" the existence of an all powerful creator.....

BUT with that said,

NOBODY can or will ever "disprove" the existence of an all powerful creator.

You can believe, speculate, hypothesise, theorize, whatever you want to do about this topic, but it cannot PROVEN or DISPROVEN.

Only a person with a highest level of ignorance, arrogance or stupidity will say that they can PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of a creator.

This is why we have faith and beliefs in our religions or theory and hypothesise in our scientific methods. A persons faith with give them proof of God, but that faith and belief cannot PROVE the Creator's existence. Just as not having faith or not believing in God doesn't mean their isn't one.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RainyState

What, in life, can be "disproved" anyway? There is either reproducible evidence for existence, or there isn't. We prove that things exist by showing evidence. People who believe in things that have no evidence are called delusional.

Can you disprove a claim like: there is an undetectable tiny elephant standing beside you? Or a teapot orbiting Jupiter?

What else, what other quality do we claim existence for that can't be directly perceived (seen, heard, touched, smelt, or tasted?) or proven to exist in some measurable way?

Can you disprove the existence of Santa Claus, because, there sure are a lot of pictures, movies, etc.? There's more evidence for Santa than there is for "god."

Why does the all-powerful Creator of the universe need such special pleading?
edit on 5Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:33:31 -050015p052015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: RainyState
NOBODY can or will ever "prove" the existence of an all powerful creator.....

BUT with that said,

NOBODY can or will ever "disprove" the existence of an all powerful creator.


This is true, but there are logical arguments we can fall back on until more evidence is provided. They are called the Null Hypothesis and Occam's Razor. They are similar, but also slightly different. Combined, they basically say, until objective evidence is provided, don't assume anything about an event.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Null hypothesis?



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

He asked for an explanation, not evidence. You of all people should know there is little evidence for any of this nonsense.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101



Many people here are saying "oh your saying I am bias but I actually came from being religious (as mentioned above usually from christianity) to being atheist, but that is exactly being bias. When you approach the question of whether there is a God you bring along with you all the christian understanding of God as understood in chistianity. To truly approach the question you have to throw all that away and ask the question from a truly unbiased perspective.


Interesting are you saying that you were a Christian that once believed in god and a creator then you became an atheist perhaps for many reasons ATS member bring up. Then you had a clean slate to work with and ponder upon, then you came to the conclusion there must be a creator/god, but Christianity might not be the way and the bible isn't guidance from god ?

So are you now a non-religious person that just believes in a creator ?
edit on 4-8-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Null hypothesis?


Null Hypothesis


In inferential statistics the null hypothesis usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H0 (read “H-naught”, "H-null", or "H-zero").



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This appears to be what so many fail to grasp. To them, it is H1, the opposite of null. Faulty logic.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well the next problem to address is people's standards for evidence to overturn H0. Too many let subjective evidence be good enough, but subjective evidence usually relies on a few assumptions being true for it to be true (like for instance that the person speaking is even telling the truth).

Then there are the people who haven't even left room in their head that they may be wrong about things.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Subnatural

An atheist that believes in an afterlife, now that is ironic.

So let me get this straight, he doesn't think anything got him here to start, but something will allow his soul to continue after his physical body dies ???


Why can't the soul have evolved over time like everything else? Do you understand what irony even is? Have you ever heard of Buddhism? LMAO at still trying to pigeonhole people's beliefs into what you WANT THEM TO BE rather than what they are. God isn't required to believe in soul or after life. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Nah, we want the discussion they don't, you might be more of a lurker than a poster, but I have engaged plenty on ATS and they want the discussion over, some of them even attack agnostics furiously, and that tells me what I need to know about their intellectual honesty.


You really are clueless. I don't think you even know what intellectual honesty is. There is no debate. There never has been when it comes to evolution or the existence of god. The debate was over before it started. It's not because people want that, it's because they have NO ARGUMENT. Most atheists do not attack agnostics, where did you even make that one up from? The majority of atheists on this site are agnostic atheists that would be willing to accept god if evidence were shown. Unfortunately this has NEVER happened. The religious folk argue primarily with fallacies and misunderstanding of science.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
If there is no God.........WHAT IS THE BEGINNING? To my recollection, there are only 2 versions.

1. God created everything, like the Bible says.
2. Darwin's theory.

Darwin's theory is complete BUNK! Total Indoctrination.



new topics




 
36
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join