We want REASONS for God!!!!!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Vector99

if god is really omnipotent, it can do anything. it can even make a rock so heavy, it cannot itself lift it.

This is just a popular idea on the internet, and by no means is a good argument. No, God cannot do logically impossible things. So no God cannot create a square with three sides. A rock to heavy for an all powerful being is a logical impossibility. If you do want to define Omnipotence as the ability to do the logically impossible, then God can create a rock to heavy for him to lift and then he can lift it, and then you'll say but thats logically imposisble, so what you've defined omnipotence as the ability to do that which is logically absurd.

then there is no fabled nemesis...there is only process...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

No one has said anything about a nemesis ..

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99

No one has said anything about a nemesis ..

morality is a conditional term

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

Elaborate.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99

Elaborate.

there are no words to describe the idiocy of a position that holds a contradiction, a contradiction upon which the abrahamic religions rely to make the logical conclusion of chosen ones versus the other - a division needing an anti-champion that reveals the contradiction without dispute...Can an OMNI-anything create its own nemesis...capable of challenging its OMNI status...if so, 'omni' is a conditional term - if not, there is no nemesis...there is only the source of all, confirming 'its' OMNI status without questions resulting from the addition of moral arguments either earthly or spiritual...resorting to morality is an emotionally charged red herring, imparting the chosen god with all-too-human attributes that suffer from the vagaries of non-OMNI status...anything argued from this position, including morality, holds presumptions that are pure invention...including the notion that evil is an entity of any consequence...or that it appeared as a temptation to an original sin that fuels the narrative till the very last page...that film, is skipping on its Play button...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

there are no words to describe the idiocy of a position that holds a contradiction, a contradiction upon which the abrahamic religions rely to make the logical conclusion of chosen ones versus the other - a division needing an anti-champion that reveals the contradiction without dispute.

Okay I see a claim of contradiction but I don't understand what your claiming contradicts. I don't know what you mean by conditional term. You seem to be just rambling to me to be honest.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Cancer is not an agent. Dingo's and humans are not the same that is a faulty comparison. Why are you dodging the question. Is it true that raping babies is evil?

Is raping babies more evil that raping adults? Why?

God is, supposedly, the agent that created this world. Evidence shows that the rules of this world require humans, as well as all other living beings, to kill and devour other living beings. So where is the evidence that "god is good"?

God, supposedly is the agent that created cancer. Innocent babies are being devoured by cancer every day. How is dying from cancer less evil that being raped? Where is the evidence that "god is good" while babies in his creation are being raped and ravaged with disease?

God is not as morally inclined as an average human being, who will normally find themselves conflicted and sad about the rules of the world.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This seems to be a position of incredulity. You cannot think of a way humans could understand God therefore you dismiss the ideas without any actual reason. That is not intelligence that is being dismissive and close minded.

Quite the opposite I assure you. Accepting that the brilliance of universe is beyond my mind is a fairly smart move I dare say, I reviewed options and decided the attempt to understand a god with silly tribal stories from the bible as opposed to science is almost childish.
Meaning, I have used reasoning to decline the tribal stories as having anything remotely to do with the resplendence of chaos and order that defines multiverses.

Dismissing the Bible as an explanation for a god, isn't close minded, it is a decision after review of evidence.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ebb and flow, the big bang was just the flow after the ebb. The universe works in cycles just like everything else, our big bang was not the first, only the most recent in my opinion.

I'm basing my position on the first law of thermodynamics and string theory, one saying energy cannot be created or destroyed and the other saying the universe is consisted entirely of strings of energy that vibrate at different frequencies.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
It seeks to demonstrate that if there is such a thing as moral truths in this world then their is logically a personal being who grounds these values in reality. Someone may disagree on moral epistemology, but one thing they would both agree on is that there is a moral truth in the situation at hand.

If you mean absolute moral truths then no there are none. Any moral truth that one thinks exists is only true to themselves and would be grounded in themselves.

The universe is neither moral or immoral. It just is.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Quite the opposite I assure you. Accepting that the brilliance of universe is beyond my mind is a fairly smart move I dare say, I reviewed options and decided the attempt to understand a god with silly tribal stories from the bible as opposed to science is almost childish.

The first three scenarios have nothing to do with a particular religion.

Dismissing the Bible as an explanation for a god, isn't close minded, it is a decision after review of evidence.

As I said the first three arguments have nothing to do with Christianity. The Second Question is where Christianity comes in and we cannot discuss that before we discuss question 1. Just because you don't have the knowledge doesn't mean it isn't there. That is an assumption on your part and one I doubt you can provide a reasonable argument for.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yet you bring Christianity is an the argument. The whole religion thing and god is a tool to make you all argue, creating emotional energies that serve another purpose.

Stick with it, or don't. I don't need to argue about it as it the arguing/debating that is the goal of a 'godling' not the actual beliefs.

originally posted by: Rex282
...the fact is the op(nor anyone else) cannot provide a definition of the creator God because they know nothing of a creator God ...

See how far you can get into this wall of text concerning the word "God":

GOD

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

Proofs of the existence of “the living God.” The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. In looking into what might be called the Book of Divine Creation, scientists learn much. One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.

In contrast to the lifeless gods of the nations, Jehovah is “the living God.” (Jer 10:10; 2Co 6:16) Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1) Men have no reason or excuse for denying God, because “what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—Ro 1:18-20.

Jehovah God is described in the Bible as living from time indefinite to time indefinite, forever (Ps 90:2, 4; Re 10:6), and as being the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only true God. (1Ti 1:17) There existed no god before him.—Isa 43:10, 11.

That was only half of what is there, a little below that are details about his attributes.

And before a whole bunch of people begin raising all sorts of objections because they can't agree with hardly any of the information above, I'd like to share a video of the magnitude of the problem that needs to be adressed in your mind to start considering the subject of God and his existence more seriously and logically (regarding what you have been taught and absorbed into your mind so far on how to apply logic, what you should think and in what ways you should think, accompanied by the appropiate propagandistic arguments and philosophies playing on your emotions). Keyword: unlearn.



And then you can have a go at cracking or discovering "the fact of the existence of God" which "is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic,..." by having a look at the microscopic first:

Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

Just a taste in case you're not going to click the link above:



The other main line of evidence revolves around human history and human behaviour which the playlist above does touch on a little bit, but not in relation to what the bible says about it. (oh, for those who forgot cause I wasn't sure myself there for a moment because of all the confusing comments I read about it, "evidence" is a synonym for "proof")

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon

Wouldn't having a need for this "god's" supposed "creation" to do his dirty work for him point to a lack of omnipotence?

Such an intellectually unsatisfying answer. This shows that you do not understand the type of God put forth in the given arguments. The Cosmological Arguments, regardless of the position you took on time, would argue for a timeless spaceless immaterial personal, powerful being. Asking when something timeless was created is not logical at all, and philosophically is a very unsophisticated thought.

Are we talking about your "Christian God"? The very same one which is written about in the OT?

OR have you found a new God?

Perhaps you might review your own OP... its not much of an intellectual arguement to begin with

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Akragon

'll play just for fun... 1. The moral arguement: IF the "Christian" God is the same as the one in the OT... Said entity doesn't have the slightest clue what morality is...

Sure but the Moral Argument doesn't seek to show the Christians God. If you are conceding that a supreme personal being exists then we can discuss this but you jumped straight to the second question.

What... you think im an Atheist?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99

there are no words to describe the idiocy of a position that holds a contradiction, a contradiction upon which the abrahamic religions rely to make the logical conclusion of chosen ones versus the other - a division needing an anti-champion that reveals the contradiction without dispute.

Okay I see a claim of contradiction but I don't understand what your claiming contradicts. I don't know what you mean by conditional term. You seem to be just rambling to me to be honest.

What is it about admitting that you have no idea - instead, levelling a barb of 'rambling' - that seems particularly Un-discerning and evasive? 🤔

Å99

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99

there are no words to describe the idiocy of a position that holds a contradiction, a contradiction upon which the abrahamic religions rely to make the logical conclusion of chosen ones versus the other - a division needing an anti-champion that reveals the contradiction without dispute.

Okay I see a claim of contradiction but I don't understand what your claiming contradicts. I don't know what you mean by conditional term. You seem to be just rambling to me to be honest.

"...resorting to morality is an emotionally charged red herring, imparting the chosen god with all-too-human attributes that suffer from the vagaries of non-OMNI status...anything argued from this position, including morality, holds presumptions that are pure invention..." Quote Å99

The OP logic ladder has no rungs to climb at its base.

Å99

a reply to: whereislogic

Nothing you did there explained anything.

Neat youtube video but also didn't explain anything.

WTF are you talking about??

a reply to: windword

Is raping babies more evil that raping adults? Why?

Raping is is objectively evil, now that we have the cleared up is it true that raping babies is evil?

God is, supposedly, the agent that created this world. Evidence shows that the rules of this world require humans, as well as all other living beings, to kill and devour other living beings. So where is the evidence that "god is good"?

Are you calling the current state of the world evil?

If so, is it true that the current state of the world is evil?

God, supposedly is the agent that created cancer. Innocent babies are being devoured by cancer every day. How is dying from cancer less evil that being raped? Where is the evidence that "god is good" while babies in his creation are being raped and ravaged with disease?

Let me give you another version of the argument it might make things more clear.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.


So I'll ask again are you saying the existence of cancer proves the existence of evil in the world? If so then you affirm the Moral Argument. If your objection is that it is logically impossible for evil to exists in the world and an all good God then please present a deductive argument that shows this to be the case.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Please define energy because my understanding of energy is that it is a number in kinematics.