Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments Against Atheism

acvavra
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 9:10:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning).

Radiation.
Quantum fluctuations.
The universe.

This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself.

Even if all things must have a cause, that doesn't entail a first cause, especially if you allow infinite sequences. A consequence of asserting that there must be a first cause is that there must also be a final effect. There is no reason to treat the temporal direction asymmetrically. If it can't go infinitely in one direction, then it can't go infinitely in the other, either.

The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

Which wouldn't necessarily be God.


-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

Bare assertion. We infer design from things based on comparison against that which is considered undesigned. Such a comparison requires, first, something that is undesigned.


-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

There is a difference between simply noting that some concept entails infinite perfection and actually conceptualizing that infinite perfection itself. Since, necessarily, an inifinitely perfect god is beyond understanding, the idea of god you have in your mind isn't, itself, infinitely perfectly, but rather a poor representation of that which you believe exists. Since it, itself, is not infinitely perfect, we need not invoke the existence of an actual infinitely perfect being to explain the cause of the imperfect concept of god in your mind.


-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil.

Not sociopaths.

Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books?

Precisely because there are people whose morals are either absent, skewed, or looser than said social and political group would collectively like.

The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

The theistic view isn't moralistic, it is obedient. It isn't: do what is right. It is: do what I say. My dog is obedient. My dog is not moral.


Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant.

Maybe. I dismiss them as non-existence. There is no spirit.

Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.
acvavra
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 9:29:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are only four possibilities about the existence of the Universe.

1. It came from NOTHING ACCIDENTLY(Evolution/Atheism).
2. It came from NOTHING SUPERNATURALLY(Theism).
3. It has always been here.
4. It isn't here, its an illusion.

Now 3 and 4 can be easily disproven. The Laws of Thermodynamics disproves 3. Everything we can observe had a beginning somewhere. 4 means your a nut case on drugs. To say that everything you can feel or touch is not real, means your insane, and you should be locked up before you hurt someone.

This leaves 1 and 2, or Evolution Versus Creation really. Now look, if 1 is right, then you have SOMETHING(matter) COMING FROM NOTHING. Forget dead, inorganic matter coming to life(Evolution), you crazy atheists think you can get material matter(SOMETHING) OUT OF NOTHING. That's not observable. You say "The Big Bang." So an explosion(DESTRUCTION) CAUSES LIFE! Or it just sort of "poofed" into existence? Listen you can't have a "poofee" without a "Poofer." This leaves 2 as the only possibility left.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 10:01:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

Cool! I love to learn new things!

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

How do you know this uncaused cause is a person?

-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

So would you say the flagellum is irreducibly complex meaning that if one part is removed it ceases to function?

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

Why do you think we are even able to imagine God? I think he is so perfect that we wouldn't be even able to imagine him. Our attempts at imagining him only produce caricatures of him that are vastly inaccurate. God if he exists is unimaginable.

-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

How does morality originate from a person (God)? That is assuming Morality is a sufficient (dependent of something else for existence) and not a necessary thing (existing in all possible world, existing no matter what, like math)
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 10:29:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 10:24:21 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Copypasta

http://www.faithclipart.com...

I thought that all sounded a little too...coherent.

loool
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 9:29:42 AM, acvavra wrote:
There are only four possibilities about the existence of the Universe.

1. It came from NOTHING ACCIDENTLY(Evolution/Atheism).
2. It came from NOTHING SUPERNATURALLY(Theism).
3. It has always been here.
4. It isn't here, its an illusion.

Now 3 and 4 can be easily disproven. The Laws of Thermodynamics disproves 3. Everything we can observe had a beginning somewhere. 4 means your a nut case on drugs. To say that everything you can feel or touch is not real, means your insane, and you should be locked up before you hurt someone.

Firstly, ad hominem, but I understand that it's easy to go there when you have no foundation on the subject. Plus you can't disprove #4.
Secondly, to say that you can ignore everything you sense and believe in a man that you've never met who died on a cross to abolish the sins of two people you've also never met along with your own, who then came back to life "means your insane, and you should be locked up before you hurt someone."

This leaves 1 and 2, or Evolution Versus Creation really. Now look, if 1 is right, then you have SOMETHING(matter) COMING FROM NOTHING. Forget dead, inorganic matter coming to life(Jesus, not Evolution)

FTFY. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Jesus' resurrection however...

you crazy atheists think you can get material matter(SOMETHING) OUT OF NOTHING. That's not observable. You say "The Big Bang." So an explosion(DESTRUCTION) CAUSES LIFE! Or it just sort of "poofed" into existence? Listen you can't have a "poofee" without a "Poofer." This leaves 2 as the only possibility left.

Funny how you mention things that are not observable.

You actually have no idea what the Big Bang Theory entails. In fact you have no clue about anything you posted above.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 11:17:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

Even is this argument is successful, the only thing it proves is that God caused the first cause. It does not prove any other attribute of God. It is possible that there was no first cause, or this first cause was something other than God. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.

-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

Evolution correctly explains the design of biological life. Furthermore there are many imperfections in design such as organs that are not used (the appendix), and children born with deformities.

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

Just because something exists in the mind, does not mean it exists in real life.
-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

Morality is likely an evolutionary trait, species that care for each other are likley to survive. Furthermore, humans can reason their own morality. Morality of God includes such things as, it is wrong to work on the Sabbath, wrong to believe in other Gods, and wrong to where clothing of multiple fabrics.

Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.

The only good argument for God is "it feels good to believe, so I believe it". Spiritual arguments or worthless. Spiritual feelings are proven to be noneffective when trying to find truth. What would you rather bet on. "The math genius calculates that you will win, the next hand of blackjack" or "the man has a divine feeling, he will win the next hand of blackjack". Reason beats "spiritual feelings" everytime when making a decision.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

For 150 years people have gone to Lourdes! Today over one million every year go to seek and find miracles, from God!
Satan would not have his hands in these miracles because God is given all the credit! Miracles are PROOF, undeniable proof God exists!
Lourdes gives HOPE!!

Dogknox
PS Google "LOURDES, FRANCE" see for yourself
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:32:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

For 150 years people have gone to Lourdes! Today over one million every year go to seek and find miracles, from God!
Satan would not have his hands in these miracles because God is given all the credit! Miracles are PROOF, undeniable proof God exists!
Lourdes gives HOPE!!

Dogknox
PS Google "LOURDES, FRANCE" see for yourself

Atheism: Definition. A group of unperceptive individuals who believe that science is their god. People of this kind are often unexperienced theory seekers who
are secularised in nature with no abiility to discern the supernatural.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:23:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". Furthermore, if God really was all powerful, instead of making a cripple walk again, or a blind person see, he would be able to eliminate blindness, and crippleness all together.
acvavra
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 11:17:47 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

Even is this argument is successful, the only thing it proves is that God caused the first cause. It does not prove any other attribute of God. It is possible that there was no first cause, or this first cause was something other than God. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.

So you admit God exists.

-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

Evolution correctly explains the design of biological life. Furthermore there are many imperfections in design such as organs that are not used (the appendix), and children born with deformities.

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

Just because something exists in the mind, does not mean it exists in real life.
-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

Morality is likely an evolutionary trait, species that care for each other are likley to survive. Furthermore, humans can reason their own morality. Morality of God includes such things as, it is wrong to work on the Sabbath, wrong to believe in other Gods, and wrong to where clothing of multiple fabrics.

Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.

The only good argument for God is "it feels good to believe, so I believe it". Spiritual arguments or worthless. Spiritual feelings are proven to be noneffective when trying to find truth. What would you rather bet on. "The math genius calculates that you will win, the next hand of blackjack" or "the man has a divine feeling, he will win the next hand of blackjack". Reason beats "spiritual feelings" everytime when making a decision.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:23:28 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". Furthermore, if God really was all powerful, instead of making a cripple walk again, or a blind person see, he would be able to eliminate blindness, and crippleness all together.
twocupcakes You are funny... YES you are right..There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". The ONLY EXPLANATION IS "GOD"!! DUH!!!
...................................................................
DICTIONARY DOT COM
mir·a·cle   [mir-uh-kuhl] Show IPA
noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
.......................................................................
AND ....NOT IF: God was all powerful!!!
FACT: God is all powerful.. It is because he IS ALL POWERFUL that he gives man a choice... To accept him or reject him!

twocupcakes It is the weak and the insecure that "FORCE" their will on others! DUH!!

Dogknox
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:38:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 3:57:55 PM, acvavra wrote:
At 7/26/2012 11:17:47 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

Even is this argument is successful, the only thing it proves is that God caused the first cause. It does not prove any other attribute of God. It is possible that there was no first cause, or this first cause was something other than God. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.

So you admit God exists.

Even if this argument is successful, the only thing it proves is that God caused the first cause. It does not prove any other attribute of God. It is possible that there was no first cause, or this first cause was something other than God. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.

No. Did you read what i wrote? I gave a brief explanation about why this argument fails. "It is possible that there was no first cause, or this first cause was something other than God. Just because something is unknown, does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation."

However, if the argument is succesfull (which it is not), it only shows a God had caused the first cause. It does not show an all powerful,all knowing, all good God. Just that God has caused the first cause, and there is no evidence to show that God has done anything else, and does not show any personality of God.

-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

Evolution correctly explains the design of biological life. Furthermore there are many imperfections in design such as organs that are not used (the appendix), and children born with deformities.

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

Just because something exists in the mind, does not mean it exists in real life.
-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

Morality is likely an evolutionary trait, species that care for each other are likley to survive. Furthermore, humans can reason their own morality. Morality of God includes such things as, it is wrong to work on the Sabbath, wrong to believe in other Gods, and wrong to where clothing of multiple fabrics.

Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.

The only good argument for God is "it feels good to believe, so I believe it". Spiritual arguments or worthless. Spiritual feelings are proven to be noneffective when trying to find truth. What would you rather bet on. "The math genius calculates that you will win, the next hand of blackjack" or "the man has a divine feeling, he will win the next hand of blackjack". Reason beats "spiritual feelings" everytime when making a decision.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:08:50 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 7/26/2012 1:23:28 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". Furthermore, if God really was all powerful, instead of making a cripple walk again, or a blind person see, he would be able to eliminate blindness, and crippleness all together.
twocupcakes You are funny... YES you are right..There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". The ONLY EXPLANATION IS "GOD"!! DUH!!!
...................................................................
DICTIONARY DOT COM
mir·a·cle   [mir-uh-kuhl] Show IPA
noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
.......................................................................
AND ....NOT IF: God was all powerful!!!
FACT: God is all powerful.. It is because he IS ALL POWERFUL that he gives man a choice... To accept him or reject him!

twocupcakes It is the weak and the insecure that "FORCE" their will on others! DUH!!

Dogknox

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:08:50 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 7/26/2012 1:23:28 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:30:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Argument...?
Proof God exists... Thousands and thousands of Miracles!
LOURDES, FRANCE
Here can be seen thousands and thousands of Crutches, Wheel Chairs and Canes! A mountain of proof God exists, documented cases of even whole limbs growing back!

There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". Furthermore, if God really was all powerful, instead of making a cripple walk again, or a blind person see, he would be able to eliminate blindness, and crippleness all together.
twocupcakes You are funny... YES you are right..There is a logical explanation for every "miracle". The ONLY EXPLANATION IS "GOD"!! DUH!!!
...................................................................
DICTIONARY DOT COM
mir·a·cle   [mir-uh-kuhl] Show IPA
noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
.......................................................................
AND ....NOT IF: God was all powerful!!!
FACT: God is all powerful.. It is because he IS ALL POWERFUL that he gives man a choice... To accept him or reject him!

twocupcakes It is the weak and the insecure that "FORCE" their will on others! DUH!!

Dogknox

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

That ^ Also, many people mistake things for miracles since we all have imperfect perceptions. People try to find patterns in everything and somehow things always come out to be God's work.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:46:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 8:44:03 AM, acvavra wrote:
Arguments Against Atheism
Since arguments against atheism are necessarily arguments for God, here are some of classical arguments for the existence of God, in summary form.

-The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.

Causality is something we observe within space-time. There is 0 basis for stretching this concept past any hypothetical limits of space-time. Also, a finite past of time and the universe, does not equate to an absolute beginning. The B-Theory of time and no-boundary proposals are not ruled out by a "finite past" for example. Basically, this argument from causality is completely easy for the Atheist to respond to.


-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.

On what grounds do we move from "complexity" to "design"?. It may be true that intelligence can create and design things that are complex, but it doesn't follow from this, that everything that is complex must come from an intelligence. This is clearly fallacious reasoning.

-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.

How is imagining a being and slapping the label perfect on it, producing a mentally perfect effect? You aren't actually having a perfect mental experience, you are simply thinking of a concept like you would of a less perfect being, and just giving it the quality of perfect semantically. Also, using this logic, a perfect orgasm must exist as well. This has to be the worst version of the Ontological Argument I have ever read.


-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

Hitler had a sense of morality too, he thought he was doing a good thing by ridding his country of Jews. Everyone has a different sense of morality, thus, this argument does nothing to support the idea that objective morality exists. I am not saying they don't, just that there is no reason to believe there is based on the argument above.

Also, you just completely ignore the fact that moral philosophy has been done for centuries without appealing to God. Also, many theistic philosophers believe that moral truths are necessary truths, and would be that way even if no God existed at all.

The moral argument, simply fails to meet its burden.


Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

Besides these types of arguments, there are no reasons to believe in God. They all fail, putting the Atheist in a perfectly rational position.


Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.

Maybe if the arguments worked, more Atheists would accept them. The problem is they are all hogwash, for lack of a better term. The only one I find interesting is the Modal Ontological Argument (not the one you presented), all the others are very easy to address.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 5:30:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 10:29:33 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/26/2012 10:24:21 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Copypasta

http://www.faithclipart.com...

I thought that all sounded a little too...coherent.

loool

The Fool: LOL
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 5:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: acvavra and Dognox... are the best arguments against God.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 5:32:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: acvavra and Dognox... are the best arguments against God.

And poopculture.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you. I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:44:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you. I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.

Also, addendum, even if you were to successfully render a non-supernaturalistic explanation for all miracle claims presented to you that wouldn't warrant the conclusion that every miracle has a non-supernaturalistic explanation, because, presumably the space of possible miracle claims is infinite. You'd have to be operating from some general epistemic or metaphysical principle in order to prove that. What is your principle?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

The FOol: beyond natural capacity.

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you.

Argument from order:
What exist must be the initial claim for there to be someone to claim what does not exist. Therefore BOP is always on the positive claim.

Argument from probability:
If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)
Therefor it is much more that we don'tr know what happened"

I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 6:56:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:52:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

The FOol: beyond natural capacity.


What's natural capacity?

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you.

Argument from order:
What exist must be the initial claim for there to be someone to claim what does not exist. Therefore BOP is always on the positive claim.

Argument from probability:
If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)
Therefor it is much more that we don'tr know what happened"



You can stop bastardizing Hume any day now. He never claimed nor could you springboard off him the idea that a miracle is impossible.

I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 6:56:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:52:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

The FOol: beyond natural capacity.


What's natural capacity?

The Fool: Capacities that could be understood through, reason, and observation.

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you.


Argument from order:
What exist must be the initial claim for there to be someone to claim what does not exist. Therefore BOP is always on the positive claim.

Argument from probability:
If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)
Therefor it is much more that we don'tr know what happened"



You can stop bastardizing Hume any day now. He never claimed nor could you springboard off him the idea that a miracle is impossible.

The Fool: have you read the Inquiry of Human understanding. ???????????????????/
LMFAO.

The Fool: that is what makes God supernatural is that he could do think in which we could not know how to do. Which out that, the concept is useless.

I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:02:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I just finished reading all of Humes work's with rigiouros analysis. In fact all his works are still on my desk here. Don't try and give me that BullSh!T.. I can see write through you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:08:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 7:00:24 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:56:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:52:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:40:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:18:52 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/26/2012 6:03:00 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:41:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that their is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle.

Prove it.

Okay, name a so called "miracle" and I will give a noon-supernatural explanation. The BOP should be on you to prove a miracle exists.

"I will give a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle" =/= "there is a non-supernatural explanation for every miracle." The latter claim implies that there is an actual truth constraint on the explanation in that there be the non-supernaturalistic explanation that actually obtains, the former doesn't. I could name any purported miracle and you could just make up any "non-supernaturalistic explanation" and say that you have actually explained the miracle in non-supernaturalistic terms.

What do you mean by supernatural, anyhow?

The FOol: beyond natural capacity.


What's natural capacity?

The Fool: Capacities that could be understood through, reason, and observation.


Cool, the supernatural can be understood through reason and observation. Problem solved.

BTW, The BOP sits squarely on you.


Argument from order:
What exist must be the initial claim for there to be someone to claim what does not exist. Therefore BOP is always on the positive claim.


Argument from probability:
If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)
Therefor it is much more that we don'tr know what happened"



You can stop bastardizing Hume any day now. He never claimed nor could you springboard off him the idea that a miracle is impossible.

The Fool: have you read the Inquiry of Human understanding. ???????????????????/
LMFAO.


Have you read any of the literature on Hume's arguments(s) against miracles since? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://www.pitt.edu...

The Fool: that is what makes God supernatural is that he could do think in which we could not know how to do. Which out that, the concept is useless.


I haven't made any claim here about the truth or falsity of any miracle claims.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!