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

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Thanks for sharing that video, isn't it interesting that the smallest relates to the largest in this universe, that level of similar organization indicates a plan, next question is who was the planner ?

Your welcome .....

I do not see why there has to be a planner....sure it is possible but not likely in my opinion.....what it does indicate is that we humans are speculating with an incomplete amount of information,we know so little of what how and why .....

The problem i have with putting it all down to a creator is it dismisses so many other possibilities,until there is definite proof i will keep an open mind....

a reply to: Grimpachi

had a butt

Good one, about as good as god having a navel, wait didnt I hear we were made in his image?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So bow down to the creator..

My god isn't as insecure to need worship, then again not spiteful or vindictive as your old testament petty god

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

A vacuum is never completely empty...

A vacuum is empty by definition - if it isn't empty it isn't a vacuum.

God and the problem ov evil:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
—Epicurus, ca 300 BCE[

So why does your god allow evil??

Able, Willing
If a god is able and willing to prevent evil, then evil should not exist. It does.

Unable, Willing
If a god is unable and willing to prevent evil, then they cannot be omnipotent but can be omnibenevolent.
This solves the logical problem of evil, but does not solve the evidential problem of evil. While a god of this nature might exist, it must be weaker than all of the suffering present in the universe, as it is clearly unable to stop it. This leaves a believer either with a god too weak to stop murders (much less create a universe or life) or a god that won't solve the problem of evil, both of which believers usually will not accept.

Able, Unwilling
If a god is able but unwilling to prevent evil, then they cannot be omnibenevolent but can be omnipotent.
This answer is far more disturbing, as it promotes that an all-powerful being wanted inhabitants of the universe to suffer, or at least didn't care enough to stop said suffering (One notable example of a being that won't stop evil would be an omnimalevolent god, who would have its own Problem of Good). A god who has intentionally stepped back from the material universe would also be compatible with deism but also with the ideas of maltheism and dystheism, which questions the whole "goodness" of God and ascribes certain evil properties to God.


Unable, Unwilling
If a god is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, then said god isn't much of a god. This god does avoid the problem of evil.

However, not only does this god not have any real power, but it's also kind of an asshat.

There's a nice succinct intelligible and logical argument - have at it my believing correspondents.

originally posted by: Mugly

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

All of the Universe was created, therefore it had to have an external start it had to be created that proves a creator this makes the creator the supreme being aka God by definition...

this is reality...

if the universe was created and it had to have an external start then you need to apply that same logic to your god.
who/what created him

Why are you applying the logic of this universe to a being that proceeded it and exists outside that logic structure?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Mugly

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

All of the Universe was created, therefore it had to have an external start it had to be created that proves a creator this makes the creator the supreme being aka God by definition...

this is reality...

if the universe was created and it had to have an external start then you need to apply that same logic to your god.
who/what created him

Why are you applying the logic of this universe to a being that proceeded it and exists outside that logic structure?

How do you explain that?

This thread is about proof.

I think you folks need a new term... 'vacuum' suggests the absence of something that exists elsewhere. If you are talking about the state of affairs preceding the Big Bang then there was nothing to be a vacuum *of*.

No matter, no energy, no time, no dimensions, nothing. Null state.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Mugly

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

All of the Universe was created, therefore it had to have an external start it had to be created that proves a creator this makes the creator the supreme being aka God by definition...

this is reality...

if the universe was created and it had to have an external start then you need to apply that same logic to your god.
who/what created him

Why are you applying the logic of this universe to a being that proceeded it and exists outside that logic structure?

How do you explain that?

This thread is about proof.

You'll be waiting a while. Applying man-made definitions to a being/force that created the universe is akin to a computer program trying to define the programmer that wrote it (and that's a gross oversimplification). The computer program simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend the nature of a creator.

But if you need proof, more power to you.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I think you folks need a new term... 'vacuum' suggests the absence of something that exists elsewhere. If you are talking about the state of affairs preceding the Big Bang then there was nothing to be a vacuum *of*.

No matter, no energy, no time, no dimensions, nothing. Null state.

How do you know?

Vacuum means empty or devoid - - as far as I know.

Where did elsewhere come from?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Mugly

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

All of the Universe was created, therefore it had to have an external start it had to be created that proves a creator this makes the creator the supreme being aka God by definition...

this is reality...

if the universe was created and it had to have an external start then you need to apply that same logic to your god.
who/what created him

Why are you applying the logic of this universe to a being that proceeded it and exists outside that logic structure?

How do you explain that?

This thread is about proof.

You'll be waiting a while. Applying man-made definitions to a being/force that created the universe is akin to a computer program trying to define the programmer that wrote it (and that's a gross oversimplification). The computer program simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend the nature of a creator.

But if you need proof, more power to you.

I don't need proof.

Its what the thread is about.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

How can something already exist in a vacuum if it's a vacuum devoid of all things...

Non sense...

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
By Charles Q. Choi | February 12, 2013

A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness, such as light. And the finding could ultimately help scientists build incredibly powerful quantum computers or shed light on the earliest moments in the universe's history.

Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle's position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence.

www.scientificamerican.com...

What is the bizarre consequence that admits a vacuum is never completely empty?

Not empty means there is no absolute vacuum something else is still present or in other words existing not created...

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

So why does your god allow evil??

Got to have freewill right? I think Evil is a human concept.

1000+ posts do we have proof yet?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The only proof I have seen is that these threads all wind up the same.


I think they are getting longer each time as well.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xtrozero

The only proof I have seen is that these threads all wind up the same.


I think they are getting longer each time as well.

I had to leave.

I was getting dizzy from the circular.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Exactly and I have told you there is no such thing and Anne links have shown this as well when they admit that a vacuum is never completely empty...

this is showing that something very small is still in existence not being created this is what they have admitted...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Wheres the op?.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Whats your company called btw?.
Love to check you out 17 and 300k a year.
Or is it a lie?.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Exactly and I have told you there is no such thing and Anne links have shown this as well when they admit that a vacuum is never completely empty...

this is showing that something very small is still in existence not being created this is what they have admitted...

You have deduced what fits your agenda.

And still your only answer for God is that he exists.

You have no argument and are just pulling out every little scrap you can to try and make it stick.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
God and the problem ov evil:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
—Epicurus, ca 300 BCE[

So why does your god allow evil??

Able, Willing
If a god is able and willing to prevent evil, then evil should not exist. It does.

Unable, Willing
If a god is unable and willing to prevent evil, then they cannot be omnipotent but can be omnibenevolent.
This solves the logical problem of evil, but does not solve the evidential problem of evil. While a god of this nature might exist, it must be weaker than all of the suffering present in the universe, as it is clearly unable to stop it. This leaves a believer either with a god too weak to stop murders (much less create a universe or life) or a god that won't solve the problem of evil, both of which believers usually will not accept.

Able, Unwilling
If a god is able but unwilling to prevent evil, then they cannot be omnibenevolent but can be omnipotent.
This answer is far more disturbing, as it promotes that an all-powerful being wanted inhabitants of the universe to suffer, or at least didn't care enough to stop said suffering (One notable example of a being that won't stop evil would be an omnimalevolent god, who would have its own Problem of Good). A god who has intentionally stepped back from the material universe would also be compatible with deism but also with the ideas of maltheism and dystheism, which questions the whole "goodness" of God and ascribes certain evil properties to God.


Unable, Unwilling
If a god is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, then said god isn't much of a god. This god does avoid the problem of evil.

However, not only does this god not have any real power, but it's also kind of an asshat.

There's a nice succinct intelligible and logical argument - have at it my believing correspondents.

It's not a question of whether God is unable to prevent evil, he can. It's not a question whether he is malevolent, he isn't. It's that he has established a specific time period for those opposing him to prove their point that we as humans can govern ourselves and live separate from God.

How have we done? We have created wars, polluted the earth, and every advancement we make in technology we generally use to our demise rather than our benefit. We cannot end sickness, poverty, or death.

Whatever suffering anyone has endured, can and will be reversed for all time when the time comes.

In the mean time, the greatest flaw among the religious is not applying the scientific method to faith and scriptures. If people would do so, most religion can be debunked. Goodness, it's as easy as picking up the encyclopedia and reading that Christmas was the Saturnalia festival of Rome long before Rome adopted "Christianity" How do you reason with folks who cannot intellectually break things down. I do not know.