Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is God?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.
biznis_3
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:21:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
God is love

god is joy

peace

happiness

comfort

how is that?

Take the word LOVE...sift throught the BIBLE whatever is not love is not God

whatever is not Joy is not God...etc

Very simple to test any doctrine to test integrity...truth never lies..it cant...hence truth

God is Love anything that is not love cannot be God
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

In my perception God is not a "who" but is more like the animating and reproducing force or power through which the universe exists, operates and renews itself.
I perceive the God of the bible as personification of life itself.
Life is involved with all creation through the various reproductive processes and cycles of nature.

The purpose of mankind is to reproduce so humans continue to exist. We can have many other purposes as well like bringing up children and teaching them what we know, encouraging them to find truth and become wise. I am sure you can think of more purposes for mankind.

The reason I believe God is life, is because in reality it takes life to create life. I cannot believe there was any time in history when that was not the case. Biogenesis is the observation that living things come only from living things.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:12:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

According to me, someone must have started all mechanisms in the universe, because realms of existence can't have come to being by themselves; so this is my reason to believe God.

As for the purposes of mankind:
By using your mind, learnimg, studying, investigating, working...remember The Almighty God all the time and abstain from evil, being good.

I don't think God created all things then leave them; because illogical to me, if you were, would you left away everything you made?!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:30:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.

I never said that love was confined only to believers. All human beings have the same innate moral code (of love). What we "ought" to do can't be objectively determined without a source of intentionality. If mankind arose from an unembodied process then objective morality couldn't be grounded. If we all know what we "ought" to do, and what we ought to do is inversely related to how loving that action is, only an independent entity capable of intentionality can ground the *objectivity* of what we "ought" to do.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:37:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

Quran: 112

Say: He is Allah/God, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

So everything you can imagine is not God, not man not monkey not snake not the flying spaghetti monster not jesus and not budha. also we know God through his 99 attributes - https://www.youtube.com... ...
Never fart near dog
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:43:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:37:23 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

Quran: 112

Say: He is Allah/God, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

So everything you can imagine is not God, not man not monkey not snake not the flying spaghetti monster not jesus and not budha. also we know God through his 99 attributes - https://www.youtube.com... ...

I could just as easily cite the Bible claiming that Jesus is God. If that's how you know who God is that requires a leap of faith.
biznis_3
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:49:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:39:40 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

In my perception God is not a "who" but is more like the animating and reproducing force or power through which the universe exists, operates and renews itself.
I perceive the God of the bible as personification of life itself.
Life is involved with all creation through the various reproductive processes and cycles of nature.

The purpose of mankind is to reproduce so humans continue to exist. We can have many other purposes as well like bringing up children and teaching them what we know, encouraging them to find truth and become wise. I am sure you can think of more purposes for mankind.

The reason I believe God is life, is because in reality it takes life to create life. I cannot believe there was any time in history when that was not the case. Biogenesis is the observation that living things come only from living things.

Word of God is truth...Word of God cannot be refuted it is the truth...if your truth is refuted...then it is Not truth
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:50:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:43:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:37:23 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

Quran: 112

Say: He is Allah/God, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

So everything you can imagine is not God, not man not monkey not snake not the flying spaghetti monster not jesus and not budha. also we know God through his 99 attributes - https://www.youtube.com... ...

I could just as easily cite the Bible claiming that Jesus is God. If that's how you know who God is that requires a leap of faith.

oh sorry your right... what i mean is God cant be a man or something.. because God is God it has some qualities, becoming a man means getting down from all powerful being to limited person, if he does that, he is not God. God does Godly things, like asking the question can God kill himself? or create another God, he cant because it has some qualities you cant pass the limits. God cant lie God cant sleep or become a snake. here debate about this one... https://www.youtube.com...
Never fart near dog
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:30:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.

I never said that love was confined only to believers. All human beings have the same innate moral code (of love). What we "ought" to do can't be objectively determined without a source of intentionality. If mankind arose from an unembodied process then objective morality couldn't be grounded. If we all know what we "ought" to do, and what we ought to do is inversely related to how loving that action is, only an independent entity capable of intentionality can ground the *objectivity* of what we "ought" to do.

Mankind did not arise from anything other than mankind. Logic and reality teach us that it takes two humans to create another human and the process is through the human reproductive cycle. Anything else is just a fantasy, regardless of whether it is religious fantasy or science fiction. Humans have never arisen from any unembodied process. Humans are taught morality by humans not by some disembodied invisible ghost.
What humans do and what they ought to do is also not objective but always subject to human culture, human judgement and individual motives.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:44:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:49:25 AM, biznis_3 wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:39:40 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

In my perception God is not a "who" but is more like the animating and reproducing force or power through which the universe exists, operates and renews itself.
I perceive the God of the bible as personification of life itself.
Life is involved with all creation through the various reproductive processes and cycles of nature.

The purpose of mankind is to reproduce so humans continue to exist. We can have many other purposes as well like bringing up children and teaching them what we know, encouraging them to find truth and become wise. I am sure you can think of more purposes for mankind.

The reason I believe God is life, is because in reality it takes life to create life. I cannot believe there was any time in history when that was not the case. Biogenesis is the observation that living things come only from living things.

Word of God is truth...Word of God cannot be refuted it is the truth...if your truth is refuted...then it is Not truth

The word of Jesus was refuted in the bible stories. Jesus was called a liar and a mad man by those who refused to believe him. Does that mean his word also was not truth? Truth obviously can be refuted and also can be perceived as a lie by all who refuse to accept it as the truth.
If it was not possible to refute truth or disbelieve it, everyone would have believed Jesus if he always told the truth.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.

According to your own words, you are nothing but an illusion Brad. Since that is the case, no one should believe a word you say or take you seriously. You are not real. You are an illusion which is experiencing and believing your own illusions. You deceive yourself with your own thoughts. Any eternal life is also nothing but an illusion if what you say is true and everything is an illusion. That would include everything humans believe and that also includes everything you believe Brad. According to your theory humans are nothing but illusions who believe and experience illusions. That theory applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else Brad.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any illusions. Wake up to yourself Brad.
The mind of God is an illusion in your own mind.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:54:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.

According to your own words, you are nothing but an illusion Brad. Since that is the case, no one should believe a word you say or take you seriously. You are not real. You are an illusion which is experiencing and believing your own illusions. You deceive yourself with your own thoughts. Any eternal life is also nothing but an illusion if what you say is true and everything is an illusion. That would include everything humans believe and that also includes everything you believe Brad. According to your theory humans are nothing but illusions who believe and experience illusions. That theory applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else Brad.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any illusions. Wake up to yourself Brad.
The mind of God is an illusion in your own mind.

God's illusions within His mind are so perfectly formed that His people believe they are real. Not all of His people were made as stupid as you, Skyangel, believing that gold, silver, trees, springs of water and the image you see in a mirror are real.

Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:30:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.

I never said that love was confined only to believers. All human beings have the same innate moral code (of love). What we "ought" to do can't be objectively determined without a source of intentionality. If mankind arose from an unembodied process then objective morality couldn't be grounded. If we all know what we "ought" to do, and what we ought to do is inversely related to how loving that action is, only an independent entity capable of intentionality can ground the *objectivity* of what we "ought" to do.

Mankind did not arise from anything other than mankind. Logic and reality teach us that it takes two humans to create another human and the process is through the human reproductive cycle. Anything else is just a fantasy, regardless of whether it is religious fantasy or science fiction. Humans have never arisen from any unembodied process. Humans are taught morality by humans not by some disembodied invisible ghost.
What humans do and what they ought to do is also not objective but always subject to human culture, human judgement and individual motives.

Where do you believe the first humans came from if they weren't created by God and didn't arise from any natural process? Do you think some societies believe that it's ethical or moral to rape an infant? To rob, kill, or abuse other people for no reason whatsoever? Humans have a universal, innate apprehension of certain moral standards. This moral perception is ingrained within the human consciousness. This is empirically observed by what laws have been passed in societies throughout the ages concerning these issues. If someone said that raping an infant is just as wrong as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla (a subjective decision) I wouldn't believe it for a second.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:41:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:05:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:54:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.

According to your own words, you are nothing but an illusion Brad. Since that is the case, no one should believe a word you say or take you seriously. You are not real. You are an illusion which is experiencing and believing your own illusions. You deceive yourself with your own thoughts. Any eternal life is also nothing but an illusion if what you say is true and everything is an illusion. That would include everything humans believe and that also includes everything you believe Brad. According to your theory humans are nothing but illusions who believe and experience illusions. That theory applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else Brad.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any illusions. Wake up to yourself Brad.
The mind of God is an illusion in your own mind.

God's illusions within His mind are so perfectly formed that His people believe they are real. Not all of His people were made as stupid as you, Skyangel, believing that gold, silver, trees, springs of water and the image you see in a mirror are real.

According to you Brad, all people are an illusion in the mind of some invisible creator, or are you implying that Gods people are real people and all other people who are not Gods people just illusions? Are all illusions created equal Brad? Are they all as stupid as you?
Do you think illusions are self aware and can feel anything at all? Do you think illusions can see or hear anything?
If you perceive me as being a stupid illusion Brad then you are believing your own illusion. According to you, I am nothing but an illusion in the mind of the creator, remember. If that is true, I am not what I appear to be and you are being fooled by any stupidity you see.

Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.

Does that include the man named Brad? Is Brads invisible creator which he idolizes as false as anyone elses god?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:41:50 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:54:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.

According to your own words, you are nothing but an illusion Brad. Since that is the case, no one should believe a word you say or take you seriously. You are not real. You are an illusion which is experiencing and believing your own illusions. You deceive yourself with your own thoughts. Any eternal life is also nothing but an illusion if what you say is true and everything is an illusion. That would include everything humans believe and that also includes everything you believe Brad. According to your theory humans are nothing but illusions who believe and experience illusions. That theory applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else Brad.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any illusions. Wake up to yourself Brad.
The mind of God is an illusion in your own mind.

God's illusions within His mind are so perfectly formed that His people believe they are real. Not all of His people were made as stupid as you, Skyangel, believing that gold, silver, trees, springs of water and the image you see in a mirror are real.

According to you Brad, all people are an illusion in the mind of some invisible creator, or are you implying that Gods people are real people and all other people who are not Gods people just illusions? Are all illusions created equal Brad? Are they all as stupid as you?
Do you think illusions are self aware and can feel anything at all? Do you think illusions can see or hear anything?
If you perceive me as being a stupid illusion Brad then you are believing your own illusion. According to you, I am nothing but an illusion in the mind of the creator, remember. If that is true, I am not what I appear to be and you are being fooled by any stupidity you see.




Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.

Does that include the man named Brad? Is Brads invisible creator which he idolizes as false as anyone elses god?

The image you see in a mirror is false. That's because it's only an illusion that isn't real and there's no breath in it. That image will perish in this age, never to be seen again.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 1:30:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:56:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:41:50 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:54:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God and His thoughts ( Christ ) are the only reality that exists. Everything else is an illusion that is formed for us to experience a world according to His program called Eternal Life.

Everything that I testify to comes directly from the mind of God.

According to your own words, you are nothing but an illusion Brad. Since that is the case, no one should believe a word you say or take you seriously. You are not real. You are an illusion which is experiencing and believing your own illusions. You deceive yourself with your own thoughts. Any eternal life is also nothing but an illusion if what you say is true and everything is an illusion. That would include everything humans believe and that also includes everything you believe Brad. According to your theory humans are nothing but illusions who believe and experience illusions. That theory applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else Brad.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any illusions. Wake up to yourself Brad.
The mind of God is an illusion in your own mind.

God's illusions within His mind are so perfectly formed that His people believe they are real. Not all of His people were made as stupid as you, Skyangel, believing that gold, silver, trees, springs of water and the image you see in a mirror are real.

According to you Brad, all people are an illusion in the mind of some invisible creator, or are you implying that Gods people are real people and all other people who are not Gods people just illusions? Are all illusions created equal Brad? Are they all as stupid as you?
Do you think illusions are self aware and can feel anything at all? Do you think illusions can see or hear anything?
If you perceive me as being a stupid illusion Brad then you are believing your own illusion. According to you, I am nothing but an illusion in the mind of the creator, remember. If that is true, I am not what I appear to be and you are being fooled by any stupidity you see.




Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.

Does that include the man named Brad? Is Brads invisible creator which he idolizes as false as anyone elses god?

The image you see in a mirror is false. That's because it's only an illusion that isn't real and there's no breath in it. That image will perish in this age, never to be seen again.

I've never understood this mirror thing, when I look in a mirror I only see a reflection of the room I'm in. Ah well it's time for my favourite drink, it's red.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 3:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:12:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:30:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.

I never said that love was confined only to believers. All human beings have the same innate moral code (of love). What we "ought" to do can't be objectively determined without a source of intentionality. If mankind arose from an unembodied process then objective morality couldn't be grounded. If we all know what we "ought" to do, and what we ought to do is inversely related to how loving that action is, only an independent entity capable of intentionality can ground the *objectivity* of what we "ought" to do.

Mankind did not arise from anything other than mankind. Logic and reality teach us that it takes two humans to create another human and the process is through the human reproductive cycle. Anything else is just a fantasy, regardless of whether it is religious fantasy or science fiction. Humans have never arisen from any unembodied process. Humans are taught morality by humans not by some disembodied invisible ghost.
What humans do and what they ought to do is also not objective but always subject to human culture, human judgement and individual motives.

Where do you believe the first humans came from if they weren't created by God and didn't arise from any natural process?

Humans come from humans. The whole idea of any "first humans" is a myth and fantasy believed by those who insist that once upon a time no life existed. No one has any evidence of that claim in the first place. It is something which is presumed and needs to be believed like any other fairy tale. Humans arise from a natural process called reproduction. They always have and always will.

Do you think some societies believe that it's ethical or moral to rape an infant? To rob, kill, or abuse other people for no reason whatsoever?

I hear that some cultures have no problem with marrying children off to adults and by that act they basically make pedopilia legal in their culture.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org...
Many girls in those countries die in childbirth. Is that moral or ethical in your opinion? It is quite acceptable in the places where they do it.

Others have no problem killing innocent people in the name of their god and calling the act good. I am not just talking about religious terrorists either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Some religious people refuse to go to doctors and end up inadvertently killing their own children due to their so called faith. That is no different to child abuse since they are not caring for their children properly by refusing to give them the proper medical attention. They seem to believe that what they are doing is perfectly moral and ethical.
http://www.deism.com...

Humans have a universal, innate apprehension of certain moral standards. This moral perception is ingrained within the human consciousness. This is empirically observed by what laws have been passed in societies throughout the ages concerning these issues. If someone said that raping an infant is just as wrong as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla (a subjective decision) I wouldn't believe it for a second.

What kind of moral standards cause believers to pray to their invisible God to heal a child and then let it die rather than take it to a doctor who could heal it?
What kind of morality is it when an adult man marries a nine year old child?
http://rudaw.net...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:50:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 3:18:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:12:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:30:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:05:26 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:52:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If I accept that God is love, how does that bring in other characteristics of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.,?

I believe that our purpose is to love selflessly. Our moral code is basically an innate identifier of how loving certain actions are. Since some aspects of morality are evidently objective, this objectivity can only be grounded in God. We basically have a realized purpose to love and this is known to us by our moral code that must necessarily be grounded in God. If God gave us this purpose to love it shows that it's God's purpose.

Life gave all humans including unbelievers in any supernatural gods the power and ability to love others. Love is not confined to believers. The moral codes of humanity are grounded in humanity itself not in any invisible person. Morals are handed down from one generation to the next and depend on which culture you were brought up in.
Love is not a supernatural man in the sky. Love is an attitude and a choice people make to be kind to others and care for all life around us.
Love does not come from any invisible supernatural person. It comes from humans.

I never said that love was confined only to believers. All human beings have the same innate moral code (of love). What we "ought" to do can't be objectively determined without a source of intentionality. If mankind arose from an unembodied process then objective morality couldn't be grounded. If we all know what we "ought" to do, and what we ought to do is inversely related to how loving that action is, only an independent entity capable of intentionality can ground the *objectivity* of what we "ought" to do.

Mankind did not arise from anything other than mankind. Logic and reality teach us that it takes two humans to create another human and the process is through the human reproductive cycle. Anything else is just a fantasy, regardless of whether it is religious fantasy or science fiction. Humans have never arisen from any unembodied process. Humans are taught morality by humans not by some disembodied invisible ghost.
What humans do and what they ought to do is also not objective but always subject to human culture, human judgement and individual motives.

Where do you believe the first humans came from if they weren't created by God and didn't arise from any natural process?

Humans come from humans. The whole idea of any "first humans" is a myth and fantasy believed by those who insist that once upon a time no life existed. No one has any evidence of that claim in the first place. It is something which is presumed and needs to be believed like any other fairy tale. Humans arise from a natural process called reproduction. They always have and always will.

Human being couldn't have existed forever and there's a few reasons for this. (1) there is overwhelming evidence of the Big Bang and this evidently shows that universe had a beginning. (2) the second law of thermodynamics mandates that the universe has a finite amount of usable energy that will consistently decrease as time passes (3) time can't be infinite because something infinite never has any succession. You were born after a finite succession of prior mothers. If your lineage was infinitely long, you could only be born after this infinite chain reaches your generation. Something infinite never reaches any end though - so if time was infinite you wouldn't be born. (4) overpopulation of the world. The human population nearly doubled within the last 100 years. If human beings have lasted for infinity on a planet with finite resources don't you think overpopulation and depletion of the planet's resources would've occurred already?
Saying that human beings have lasted forever is something that is easy to conceptualized but impossible to rationalize.


Do you think some societies believe that it's ethical or moral to rape an infant? To rob, kill, or abuse other people for no reason whatsoever?

I hear that some cultures have no problem with marrying children off to adults and by that act they basically make pedopilia legal in their culture.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org...

So this is really wrong, right? Or are you saying that in your subjective opinion this is morally wrong? Remember what I had originally said: no society accepts raping infants. Child marriage is not the same thing as allowing infant rape. If somebody walked down the street and randomly decided to rape an infant in a nation that allowed child marriage do you think he'd be punished? In the poorest of third world countries they allow child marriage (usually not younger than 15) but it's still against the law to have intercourse with the bride until she is "suitable for intercourse." In Yemen (child marriage nation) they provide you with public executions for raping a child.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Many girls in those countries die in childbirth. Is that moral or ethical in your opinion? It is quite acceptable in the places where they do it.

Many women die in childbirth without sanitary or proper medical treatment. Do you mean only the girls who are giving birth underage? The women who are able to give birth are of at least an age of sexual maturity. These cultures are so poor that the girl's family and herself too agree to be with a husband and bear children to help provide and to give honor to the family.

Others have no problem killing innocent people in the name of their god and calling the act good. I am not just talking about religious terrorists either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

This isnt relevant because killing in the name of some cause is still a necessary justification. Show me spontaneous killing or killing for no reason or killing for fun that is acceptable by any society.

Some religious people refuse to go to doctors and end up inadvertently killing their own children due to their so called faith. That is no different to child abuse since they are not caring for their children properly by refusing to give them the proper medical attention. They seem to believe that what they are doing is perfectly moral and ethical.
http://www.deism.com...

This may be true, but it doesn't disprove objective moral standards or address the ones that I've named.


What kind of moral standards cause believers to pray to their invisible God to heal a child and then let it die rather than take it to a doctor who could heal it?
What kind of morality is it when an adult man marries a nine year old child?
http://rudaw.net...

It's sad if the child could have been saved by medicine, yes. This example doesnt disprove objective moral standards though. There are still laws prohibiting inter coarse within a child marriage until the bride is suitable for intercoarse. Also a case of a 9 year old is very young compared to the usual age of around 15. This is not analogous whatsoever to allowing infant rape though.

Tell me this: is infant rape more wrong than preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Do you believe that your sense of morality is just your own meritless opinion or do you think infant rape, child marriage, and letting people die without medicine is truly immoral?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:50:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 3:18:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:12:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Where do you believe the first humans came from if they weren't created by God and didn't arise from any natural process?

Humans come from humans. The whole idea of any "first humans" is a myth and fantasy believed by those who insist that once upon a time no life existed. No one has any evidence of that claim in the first place. It is something which is presumed and needs to be believed like any other fairy tale. Humans arise from a natural process called reproduction. They always have and always will.

Human being couldn't have existed forever and there's a few reasons for this. (1) there is overwhelming evidence of the Big Bang and this evidently shows that universe had a beginning.

The big bang theory is relatively new (19th century) and I think the novelty of it attracted a lot of gullible people who want to appear to be smarter than they really are. The sad thing is that science seems to sell new theories to the gullible who tend to perceive them as some kind of facts.
Believers in the big bang theory are no different to the faith believers in the invisible God. They all believe only what they want to believe from their "sacred" writings regardless of whether the writings are religious or scientific texts and they all ignore the writings which oppose what they want to believe even when those opposing writings are also found in the religious and scientific texts themselves.

(2) the second law of thermodynamics mandates that the universe has a finite amount of usable energy that will consistently decrease as time passes

The fact remains that for every theory and law there is an opposite theory and law, for every idea there is an opposite idea and all opposites are just as valid as each other.
You want to believe the second law of thermodynamics to support a theory that the universe is finite but what about the first law of thermodynamics which supports a theory that the universe is infinite and has always existed? It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, how can energy decrease or be used up?
Besides that there are many flaws with the big bang theory.
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://metaresearch.org...
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk...

(3) time can't be infinite because something infinite never has any succession. You were born after a finite succession of prior mothers. If your lineage was infinitely long, you could only be born after this infinite chain reaches your generation. Something infinite never reaches any end though - so if time was infinite you wouldn't be born.

What makes you believe that time can't be infinite?
Do you understand the concept of time being nothing but an illusion?
https://www.youtube.com...
http://everythingforever.com...

Since it takes two humans to create one human, the finite succession of humans is logically an infinite cycle. The mistake you are making is in ignoring the cycle as you concentrate on the linear aspects. Life is a cycle which is filled with finite reproductive processes yet at the same time the process itself repeats itself in the next generations. Therefore the process can be seen as both finite as well as infinite. It is finite in an individual sense of individual birth and death but it is infinite in a general sense of the cycle repeating itself through the generations. The cycle is very simply a cycle of the new replacing the old. It is a constant cycle of change. The beginning and end are always at the same point in the cycle. One things begins at the same time that another ends. Imagine a circle as a cycle of life. Place a finite point anywhere on the circumference of that circle. That point could be seen as the beginning and also as the end of the circumference yet it makes no difference where you place it in the circle or at what time you put it there for history tends to repeat itself in principle. Life is a cycle which you need to keep in mind when thinking about it rather than reducing it and confining it to a linear time line. You need to take both aspects into account to see the bigger picture.

(4) overpopulation of the world. The human population nearly doubled within the last 100 years. If human beings have lasted for infinity on a planet with finite resources don't you think overpopulation and depletion of the planet's resources would've occurred already?

No because natural disasters on Earth tend to keep Earths population balanced. Humans have also always had the ability to control their own reproduction and not let it get out of hand. Humans also tend to kill each other off in wars and there are also various diseases which cause mass deaths due to humans not having any cure for them. Death is always with us at all times. Resources are recyclable and also tend to replenish themselves through lifes natural reproduction processes.

Saying that human beings have lasted forever is something that is easy to conceptualized but impossible to rationalize.

Some might find it difficult or even impossible to rationalize but if it was impossible to rationalize, I would have been incapable of rationalizing it. Since I have rationalized it, I have proved it is not impossible to rationalize.
It is far easier to rationalize it than trying to rationalize that humans have a common ancestor with the plants and animals on Earth and evolved from some cosmic particle over billions of years or that we were created from some literal dust even if you want to believe it was star dust as opposed to Earth dust. Do you notice any common theme in there regarding dust or tiny particles? Both are theories based on a speculation that once upon a time mankind did not exist at all. Now why is that no surprise since the man who invented the big bang theory was also a believer in God? Human beliefs tend to affect the way we see universe whether we are consciously aware of their affects on our perception or not.

Basing theories on a hypothesis ( a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) is no different to basing a belief on a speculation.

You need to begin with facts not with speculations. The fact is that humans do exist today in reality and they reproduce through the natural sexual reproduction process. You can logically say that it takes two humans to create one human because that is the way humans have been observed to reproduce in the past and therefore we can safely predict they will continue to reproduce the same way in the future in spite of all the mutations and variations amongst them. Some are obviously fertile and some are not. Logic will dictate that the fertile will continue to multiply naturally and the infertile obviously will not. To speculate that there ever was a time in history when humans did not come from the human reproductive process is to believe in a fairy tale based on imagination. It is not a belief based on an observable reality.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:40:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:50:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/2/2014 3:18:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2014 5:12:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2014 4:28:16 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Do you think some societies believe that it's ethical or moral to rape an infant? To rob, kill, or abuse other people for no reason whatsoever?

I hear that some cultures have no problem with marrying children off to adults and by that act they basically make pedopilia legal in their culture.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org...

So this is really wrong, right? Or are you saying that in your subjective opinion this is morally wrong? Remember what I had originally said: no society accepts raping infants. Child marriage is not the same thing as allowing infant rape. If somebody walked down the street and randomly decided to rape an infant in a nation that allowed child marriage do you think he'd be punished? In the poorest of third world countries they allow child marriage (usually not younger than 15) but it's still against the law to have intercourse with the bride until she is "suitable for intercourse." In Yemen (child marriage nation) they provide you with public executions for raping a child.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


If you consider pedophiles which include baby rapists to be a society of people, then that particular society obviously does accept the raping of infants. When you refer to society you need to understand that it is filled with people who have many different views, beliefs and morals. Many of them are considered to be mentally disabled by those of us who think we are so much more intelligent and have higher moral standards than those we look down on.

Whether something is against the law or not makes no difference to the fact that many people violate the law and are not caught. No baby or child is going to report a pedophile for raping them because no baby knows it is against the law in the first place. Children who are abused have no clue where to go for help or that help is even available. Many adults abuse children and get away with it because they are never reported. Do you really think a pedophile who marries a nine year old will not rape the child till she is 15 because it is against the law? Wake up to reality. They do not want to take care of the child. They want to satisfy their own lusts.

I am saying right and wrong is always subjective. What human has the right to dictate what is right and wrong to another human? What I believe is right and wrong is subject to my own perception and subject to the culture in which I was brought up and subject to the way I was programmed and brainwashed in my upbringing.

Others have no problem killing innocent people in the name of their god and calling the act good. I am not just talking about religious terrorists either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

This isnt relevant because killing in the name of some cause is still a necessary justification. Show me spontaneous killing or killing for no reason or killing for fun that is acceptable by any society.

Killing is still killing whether you wish to justify it or not. Are you saying Muslim terrorists are justified for their acts of terrorism because they do it for their God? Psychotic people kill others for fun. Are their actions justified because they are mentally unstable? Try seeing the psychotic as a society of people and then you will understand that there is a society which does kill for fun. Besides that humans create games where they can kill other humans for fun and those games are totally acceptable by society. The games prove that the desire to kill other humans exists in humans even if the games are a way for humans to express that desire without actually killing real people. The games are obviously not enough excitement for those who gain more pleasure killing real people than they do killing imaginary people.

Some religious people refuse to go to doctors and end up inadvertently killing their own children due to their so called faith. That is no different to child abuse since they are not caring for their children properly by refusing to give them the proper medical attention. They seem to believe that what they are doing is perfectly moral and ethical.
http://www.deism.com...

This may be true, but it doesn't disprove objective moral standards or address the ones that I've named.

It is an example which proves that morality is subjective and not objective at all. What might be perceived as immoral and unacceptable to one person or one society of people might be perceived as totally moral and acceptable by another society or part of society.

What kind of moral standards cause believers to pray to their invisible God to heal a child and then let it die rather than take it to a doctor who could heal it?
What kind of morality is it when an adult man marries a nine year old child?
http://rudaw.net...

It's sad if the child could have been saved by medicine, yes. This example doesnt disprove objective moral standards though. There are still laws prohibiting inter coarse within a child marriage until the bride is suitable for intercoarse. Also a case of a 9 year old is very young compared to the usual age of around 15. This is not analogous whatsoever to allowing infant rape though.

It proves that morality is subjective. There is no such thing as objective moral standards when it comes to the whole world agreeing on one particular thing as being moral or immoral. Humans are always subjective creatures. Everything we judge is subject to human perception. If humans saw thing the way a wild animal does we would have no morals at all. We would simply follow our own instincts and judge no other human any more than animals judge each other. They simply act and react according to natural instincts.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 4:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The big bang theory is relatively new (19th century) and I think the novelty of it attracted a lot of gullible people who want to appear to be smarter than they really are. The sad thing is that science seems to sell new theories to the gullible who tend to perceive them as some kind of facts.
Believers in the big bang theory are no different to the faith believers in the invisible God. They all believe only what they want to believe from their "sacred" writings regardless of whether the writings are religious or scientific texts and they all ignore the writings which oppose what they want to believe even when those opposing writings are also found in the religious and scientific texts themselves.

There is verifiable scientific evidence that the Big Bang occurred. (1) observed cosmic background radiation, (2) redshift in galaxies are expanding further away from each other and can be calculated in reverse back to a single point (3) Einstein's theory of relativity necessitates that the universe must've had a beginning. The Big Bang is supported by mainstream scientific consensus - and an overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.

(2) the second law of thermodynamics mandates that the universe has a finite amount of usable energy that will consistently decrease as time passes

The fact remains that for every theory and law there is an opposite theory and law, for every idea there is an opposite idea and all opposites are just as valid as each other.
You want to believe the second law of thermodynamics to support a theory that the universe is finite but what about the first law of thermodynamics which supports a theory that the universe is infinite and has always existed? It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true, how can energy decrease or be used up?
Besides that there are many flaws with the big bang theory.
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://metaresearch.org...
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk...

The second law of thermodynamics is always true - there isn't a theory opposing it. Matter can not be created or destroyed by any physical means. The Big Bang itself had a metaphysical origin and contained all the matter in the universe in that instant. All of life on earth is reliant on energy from the sun. There is only a finite amount of helium that the sun contains and the second law mandates that this release of energy from helium can't be reversed. It'd be like expecting your car to keep running once it's out of gas.


What makes you believe that time can't be infinite?
Do you understand the concept of time being nothing but an illusion?
https://www.youtube.com...
http://everythingforever.com...

Since it takes two humans to create one human, the finite succession of humans is logically an infinite cycle. The mistake you are making is in ignoring the cycle as you concentrate on the linear aspects. Life is a cycle which is filled with finite reproductive processes yet at the same time the process itself repeats itself in the next generations. Therefore the process can be seen as both finite as well as infinite. It is finite in an individual sense of individual birth and death but it is infinite in a general sense of the cycle repeating itself through the generations. The cycle is very simply a cycle of the new replacing the old. It is a constant cycle of change. The beginning and end are always at the same point in the cycle. One things begins at the same time that another ends. Imagine a circle as a cycle of life. Place a finite point anywhere on the circumference of that circle. That point could be seen as the beginning and also as the end of the circumference yet it makes no difference where you place it in the circle or at what time you put it there for history tends to repeat itself in principle. Life is a cycle which you need to keep in mind when thinking about it rather than reducing it and confining it to a linear time line. You need to take both aspects into account to see the bigger picture.

What you're referring to is the B-theory of time: that past and future don't actually exist. The problem still remains though. You can't be caused into existence without your mother. Your mother's mother needed a mother to cause her into existence as well. It can't be a closed loop because every single mother needs a necessary cause. In other words, a perpetual existence can't exist if the thing that causes that perpetual existence can't exist without a necessary cause.


No because natural disasters on Earth tend to keep Earths population balanced. Humans have also always had the ability to control their own reproduction and not let it get out of hand. Humans also tend to kill each other off in wars and there are also various diseases which cause mass deaths due to humans not having any cure for them. Death is always with us at all times. Resources are recyclable and also tend to replenish themselves through lifes natural reproduction processes.

This makes the assumption that wars, natural disasters, and diseases have always kept the population in check. It's true that wars and diseases kill off the population, but it's not enough to stop the inevitable increase in the human global population. We've seen drastic increases in the global population in very recent times. Not all resources are replenishable on earth. All of these non-replenishable resources would've been used up already.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Saying that human beings have lasted forever is something that is easy to conceptualized but impossible to rationalize.

Some might find it difficult or even impossible to rationalize but if it was impossible to rationalize, I would have been incapable of rationalizing it. Since I have rationalized it, I have proved it is not impossible to rationalize.
It is far easier to rationalize it than trying to rationalize that humans have a common ancestor with the plants and animals on Earth and evolved from some cosmic particle over billions of years or that we were created from some literal dust even if you want to believe it was star dust as opposed to Earth dust. Do you notice any common theme in there regarding dust or tiny particles? Both are theories based on a speculation that once upon a time mankind did not exist at all. Now why is that no surprise since the man who invented the big bang theory was also a believer in God? Human beliefs tend to affect the way we see universe whether we are consciously aware of their affects on our perception or not.

Basing theories on a hypothesis ( a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) is no different to basing a belief on a speculation.

You need to begin with facts not with speculations. The fact is that humans do exist today in reality and they reproduce through the natural sexual reproduction process. You can logically say that it takes two humans to create one human because that is the way humans have been observed to reproduce in the past and therefore we can safely predict they will continue to reproduce the same way in the future in spite of all the mutations and variations amongst them. Some are obviously fertile and some are not. Logic will dictate that the fertile will continue to multiply naturally and the infertile obviously will not. To speculate that there ever was a time in history when humans did not come from the human reproductive process is to believe in a fairy tale based on imagination. It is not a belief based on an observable reality.

The problem is that it's logically impossible and goes against scientific evidence to assert that our existence is infinite.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:13:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to discuss objective morality further without getting carried away with minor points.

(1) do you believe that a society that accepts prayer healing as moral must also accept infant rape as moral?

If not, you can't assert that an instance of moral subjectivity, like praying for a child to get it healed instead of giving it medicine, means that absolutely no objective moral standards exist in any and all cases.

(2) do you believe that raping an infant, or raping your mother or your children is morally wrong just because of your opinion that it's wrong? With your opinion having the same merit as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

(3) do you believe that a poor society that allows child marriage simultaneously means that they allow infant rape in this society?

(4) do you believe that killing other people, robbing other people, or raping other people has been acceptable in any society for no reason at all? By reason I mean any sort of justification. If I kill a man because he was trying to harm me, my justification for killing him is self-defense. If a crazy Muslim kills innocent children because he thinks it pleases Allah and is for the greater good, his justification is for that reason. Do you believe that people just accept doing whatever they want without any sort of justification? Do you need justification for liking chocolate ice cream more than vanilla? It's totally subjective isn't it?

(5) do you believe that human beings are capable of overriding their conscience for selfish reasons? A person cheating on their significant other for sexual pleasure despite knowing that it was wrong to cheat, for example.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 4:49:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The big bang theory is relatively new (19th century) and I think the novelty of it attracted a lot of gullible people who want to appear to be smarter than they really are. The sad thing is that science seems to sell new theories to the gullible who tend to perceive them as some kind of facts.
Believers in the big bang theory are no different to the faith believers in the invisible God. They all believe only what they want to believe from their "sacred" writings regardless of whether the writings are religious or scientific texts and they all ignore the writings which oppose what they want to believe even when those opposing writings are also found in the religious and scientific texts themselves.

There is verifiable scientific evidence that the Big Bang occurred. (1) observed cosmic background radiation, (2) redshift in galaxies are expanding further away from each other and can be calculated in reverse back to a single point (3) Einstein's theory of relativity necessitates that the universe must've had a beginning. The Big Bang is supported by mainstream scientific consensus - and an overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.

There is also verifiable evidence that Santa puts presents under the xmas tree every year.
1. Observed xmas tree
2. Observed presents
3. Observed missing milk,biscuits and carrots which were left for the gift giver and the reindeers.
4. Logic necessitates that someone ate the food and left the presents there.
The evidence is obvious and can be verified but you are only verifying evidence you are not verifying your conclusion regarding the evidence. The conclusion regarding the evidence is false even if Santa is supported by main stream consensus. The main stream is fooling you as much as main stream religion fools the religious believers. Humans enjoy chasing their various fictions and fantasies and even pay each other to do it.

"Something" has always existed in order to create something else since logic and reality tells us that you cannot get something from nothing. That "something" does not necessarily need to be an individual thing or a sole thing which existed apart from everything else and from which all material things in the universe evolved.

If one thing can always have existed then there is a possibility that many different things can always have existed. Why confine yourself to just one thing? Open your mind and expand your thinking instead of confining it to a tiny box regardless of whether your box label is religious or scientific. Both are confined spaces.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 5:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:16:05 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If we accept the premise that God exists there's only more questions that follow.

Who is God? Is God still involved with his creations? What is the purpose of mankind?

I want to know your reasons for believing that you know who God is.

God is what we want it to be. And that is all.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."