Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Me VS Everyone - Evidence of G-d

talmid
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:21:21 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air.

Yet we see God appearing from nowhere and yet we don't see any Big Bang theorist claiming that everything came from nothing.

If God could had "always existed", this could just as well had been the case with the universe itself. Isn't the theory that the universe did exist before Big Bang, albeit in a tiny version?
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:22:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator.

So someone created God. Great, then we've clarified that.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:05:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

What we know is that the current state of the universe began - not that energy and matter began to exist at that time. You should be arguing for a cause rather than a creator.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

Show me nature is a creation. Show me God is not.

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gentorev
Posts: 2,903
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 9:24:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The space shuttle and all its earthly support systems has a creator, (Mankind). But when the creator made the first wheel after observing a log rolling down a hill, the creator did not say, "Look I have just created the first component to go toward our future space shuttle." It would take thousands and thousands of years and billions of new creations that evolved from the wheel, each creation being an expression of the heights to which the mind of the creator had evolved, before the creator could say, "And now Let us make
the space shuttle, etc.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:49:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right?

You were doing so well up to this point, but then you threw your reasoning right out the window when you came to this conclusion...

There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

No luck required, the OP is little more than an argument from ignorance and incredulity. Your words bear no weight at all.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 4:57:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing.

The Greeks were smart, but some of their ideas are outdated.
Assuming the universe actually did have a beginning, Dr. Lawrence Krauss has a brilliant explanation for how something can come from nothing. All that is needed are the principals of relativity and quantum physics.

Furthermore, if the universe is a static block of spacetime then it didn't have an "origin", there was no "beginning", it didn't come from anywhere. The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (in my Sig) ultimately argues for this view.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator.

Sorry, but that isn't a rule in logic and I would dispute it very much.
What is the "creator" of radioactive decay? How about the "creator" of quantum fluctuations?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:05:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

Let's start of with briefly saying that Greek philosphers aren't exactly the best sources for proper science. Pretty much everything they said was wrong. However, even disregarding that, the argument provides no evidence for god: It only raises more questions. Where did god come from? The 'atheistic' answer today is that there was a big bang. Everything started with the simplest possible particles, and it gradually got more complex. We don't know how or why it began yet, but god is not a good explanation: God is infinitely complex, and therefore much harder to explain than basic particles. If you acknowledge that god can just exist or start to exist, why can you not acknowledge the same for the universe?

Your second argument is simply not true. There is no logical rule dictating that everything must have a creator. Things can just happen. In fact, most things in nature just evolved naturally. (I assume you don't disagree with evolution, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Evolution shows that things can just develop gradually, and that complicated things actually usually come from simpler things. It probably starts of with the very simple replicating chemicals, gradually evolves into single cells, which gradually start to merge and become more and more complex, eventually leading to us and in the future to many things we probably can't even imagine.

To conclude, I'd like to remind you of the god of the gaps fallacy: That we don't know something is not an argument for god.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:19:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

There"s no flaw in your belief, but it"s not what the insistent denier wants. Because the insistent denier wants justified reasons to judge for themselves what is good. If there is "no God" then there is no reason for faith or hope in something other then fulfillment of what they want. So the only proof they claim to want, they know God will never do, until the day come.

So be ready for what is obvious to you to be denied and argued for deniable constantly. Consider the tactic of the serpent in the garden and you will see it used here over and over again.
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 7:59:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 5:19:16 PM, DPMartin wrote:

There"s no flaw in your belief, but it"s not what the insistent denier wants. Because the insistent denier wants justified reasons to judge for themselves what is good. If there is "no God" then there is no reason for faith or hope in something other then fulfillment of what they want. So the only proof they claim to want, they know God will never do, until the day come.


So be ready for what is obvious to you to be denied and argued for deniable constantly. Consider the tactic of the serpent in the garden and you will see it used here over and over again.

In the future, please refrain from pretending like you know what makes others believe what they believe. I don't want god not to believe because I can decide what is good, but simply because of a lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies.

I would also disagree that without god there is no reason for hope. In fact, there is much more hope: If god is real, even a creation of a perfect being is terribly flawed: If even god couldn't make earth a (near) perfect place, what chance do we have? However, without god, the world is ours to improve. It's our responsibility to improve things, but it could be possible.

Obviously there is no hope that humanity will exist for ever, but honestly, that doesn't bother me much (unless I'm having an existential crisis).

For a much clearer and better explanation of why the non-existence of god or eternity gives me hope, I'd recommend watching this video of Veritasium about nihilism. It doesn't deal specifically with god, but it is really interesting and relevant nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com...
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 11:10:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 7:59:32 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:19:16 PM, DPMartin wrote:

There"s no flaw in your belief, but it"s not what the insistent denier wants. Because the insistent denier wants justified reasons to judge for themselves what is good. If there is "no God" then there is no reason for faith or hope in something other then fulfillment of what they want. So the only proof they claim to want, they know God will never do, until the day come.


So be ready for what is obvious to you to be denied and argued for deniable constantly. Consider the tactic of the serpent in the garden and you will see it used here over and over again.

I don't want god not to believe because I can decide what is good, but simply because of a lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies.

According to who and who"s requirements and according to who"s judgement? Wouldn"t that be you? Your own requirement of proof. Which you know you are not going to get, correct? God does not have to meet your conditions of proof in order to be, does He? But as you say He has to before you would believe, correct? Therfore where is it that I was incorrect in the reasoning behide those who insist to deny?

Hope and faith are simple and easy, reasons to not believe are complicated and constantly the work of men to justify.
talmid
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 11:57:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
RESPONSUM PT 1
I apologize for being unable to answer you all personally and directly. I'm just terrible at this quoting business. Let's try to sate all of you at once:
Here are some of the arguments which I am seeing:

- 1. I said that nothing comes from nothing, and that where there is a creation there must be a creator. The children here argued that this principle must also apply to God, ignoring the fact that God is not a thing (which disqualifies the nothing comes from nothing rule) nor is He a creation (which disqualifies the wherever there is a creation there must be a creator. I believe I addressed these issues before on a previous thread, titled "Theists, How did God come into existence?" I'll just paste my reply from there to here, so that everyone can have a clearer understanding of what God is. I said: Something that people in general fail to understand is that G-d never "came into existence". Please note:
1) He has no body or form whatsoever, not even a form of ethereal light contrary to what some people believe. He is beyond ALL properties of time and space.
2) He is beyond ALL properties of time and space. He is the master of metaphysics, physics, mathematics, and everything else which involves the composure of our universe. Two plus one only equals three because that is how G-d arranged it to be. He can rearrange it at will.
3) After millions of years of calculating, not even the most powerful supercomputer will be able to comprehend even the dirt of His nail. It is needless to say that our limited minds will never be able to fully understand what G-d is. Not even the angels can fully comprehend the glory of G-d. There are ten kinds of angels, each one having a higher rank than the other. They are the Chayot, Ophanim, Erelim, Hashmallim, Seraphim, Malachim, Elokim, Bnei Elokim, Cherubim, and Ishim (Ishim literally means "men" to indicate that they are the closest to men). The ones mentioned first are closer to G-d, and the ones mentioned last are the furthest from Him. The Ishim have the lowest understanding and comprehension of G-d, and the Chayot have the highest understanding and comprehension. Even the Chayot don't FULLY understand what G-d is.

It is needless to say that us puny and insignificant humans cannot comprehend even a fracture of G-d's glory. When people ask "Who created G-d" or "How did G-d come into existence", it is an illegitimate question. What is implied? An analogy: If you tell a child that the pen in his hand is a gun, he will start asking questions about the pen thinking that it is a gun. "How does it shoot? How can such a small bullet kill a person? Does it take batteries? etc etc etc". Technically, he is asking good questions. However, such questions only apply to a gun. In our case, the atheists here are the children, G-d is the pen, and they're asking questions about the pen thinking that it's a gun. Please understand that G-d is not a gun. Being beyond time, space, and all other properties of matter which are unknown to us, it is foolish to even ask questions like "Who created G-d". We don't even know what G-d is, how can you ask questions about His Being?


Hopefully I have settled that issue. Now, let us move on:

- 2. To my understanding, there are those among you who would like to argue that the universe never began, as did Aristotle and his friends. Rather, the beginning point of the "Big Bang" always existed, and that only at a certain point did it burst and expand to bring about the universe which we know today. In an attempt to refute this, I'd like to point at the fact that this is impossible because of the reason which I stressed in my opening statements: Keep in mind that nothing in the entire universe has ever come from nothing. The apple came from branch, the branch from the tree, and the tree from the ground. That being said, we can conclude that the beginning point of the Big Bang before the actual explosion shares the same properties. That being said, we're back to square one: Where did it come from? There is one possibility and that is that it came from something which is not confined to the laws of time and space, which is, God.

- 3. One of you mentioned evolution, speaking of it as a scientific fact, giving me the "benefit of the doubt" for not denying evolution. I know this is very off topic, but I'd like to destroy evolution in its tracks in order to clear the road from any confusion.

- Important to note, evolution has NEVER been proven. Richard Dawkins and his friends consistently lie when they boast over having proven their ridiculous theory, which has been refuted a number of times already in many different ways. The entire theory of evolution is all speculation, not evidence. A scientist takes theory A and theory B which have been proven to be true, and so he assumes that theory C is true, because it is closely related to the first two theories. In our case, this would be climate adaptation, which is somehow used as an evidence that there was a time when men had tails and swung around in trees. Here are some of the refutations which I have come across in regard to this odious theory:

FIRST REFUTATION - THE STOMACH The human stomach, in the simplest terms possible, is nothing but a lump of meat. When a person eats a steak, which is another lump of meat, meat B descends into meat A. Then, the digestive process begins. Acids begin decomposing meat B (the steak), but for some reason, they don't decompose meat A (the stomach). Why? To be honest, I don't know myself. However, I believe that it is safe to assume that the stomach has a protective mechanism against its own acids. My question is: If evolution were true, and we all descend from a creature which once-upon-a-time had no stomach, and then later evolved and developed a stomach with the digestive system described above, shouldn't all life have been destroyed by its own acids before it had the chance to evolve and develop the trait of this protective mechanism which I have mentioned above? For argument's sake, say that this protective mechanism is a second layer which protects the inner softer part of the stomach from the acids. Shouldn't we have all died out before we developed this second layer?

I happened to come up with that refutation myself. The following ones are not mine, and so I will link you to outside sites where they can be found. The reason why I'm posting a link instead of just explaining it to you hear is because I'm running out of characters and I fear that I won't be able to finish. Also, I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. Now, that being said: Here it is

2. Evolution vs giraffe - http://creation.com...

3. Evolution vs my salt shaker - http://www.icr.org...

4. Evolution vs dinosaur eggs - http://www.hidabrut.com...

5. Evolution vs Dr. Robert Gentry - https://www.youtube.com...

Here are a bunch of other objections to evolution -https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm looking forward to some more replies. Also I apologize if I missed any of your questions or objections. Please PM me if I missed you, my intent here was to cover all general issues. Obviously I can't address you all, especially considering my limited amount of characters.

Shalom! https://www.youtube.com...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:52:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 11:57:54 PM, talmid wrote:
RESPONSUM PT 1
I apologize for being unable to answer you all personally and directly. I'm just terrible at this quoting business. Let's try to sate all of you at once:
Here are some of the arguments which I am seeing:

- 1. I said that nothing comes from nothing, and that where there is a creation there must be a creator. The children here argued that this principle must also apply to God, ignoring the fact that God is not a thing (which disqualifies the nothing comes from nothing rule) nor is He a creation (which disqualifies the wherever there is a creation there must be a creator.

So God is a non-thing thing somewhere far far away that just exists.

Evidence perhaps?

I believe I addressed these issues before on a previous thread, titled "Theists, How did God come into existence?" I'll just paste my reply from there to here, so that everyone can have a clearer understanding of what God is. I said: Something that people in general fail to understand is that G-d never "came into existence". Please note:
1) He has no body or form whatsoever, not even a form of ethereal light contrary to what some people believe. He is beyond ALL properties of time and space.

Really? Have you tested that? What evidence and facts led you to conclude that? If he is above all natural laws, how did you come to know that he exist? And how can you make such a prediction if the laws of physics don't apply, and therefore any prediction is meaningless?

2) He is beyond ALL properties of time and space. He is the master of metaphysics, physics, mathematics, and everything else which involves the composure of our universe. Two plus one only equals three because that is how G-d arranged it to be. He can rearrange it at will.

Same as above

3) After millions of years of calculating, not even the most powerful supercomputer will be able to comprehend even the dirt of His nail. It is needless to say that our limited minds will never be able to fully understand what G-d is.

Then why are you attributing properties to God if he is beyond understanding?

Not even the angels can fully comprehend the glory of G-d.

Evidence.

There are ten kinds of angels, each one having a higher rank than the other. They are the Chayot, Ophanim, Erelim, Hashmallim, Seraphim, Malachim, Elokim, Bnei Elokim, Cherubim, and Ishim (Ishim literally means "men" to indicate that they are the closest to men). The ones mentioned first are closer to G-d, and the ones mentioned last are the furthest from Him. The Ishim have the lowest understanding and comprehension of G-d, and the Chayot have the highest understanding and comprehension. Even the Chayot don't FULLY understand what G-d is.

Proof needed. Also, begging the question.

It is needless to say that us puny and insignificant humans cannot comprehend even a fracture of G-d's glory.

Begging the question

When people ask "Who created G-d" or "How did G-d come into existence", it is an illegitimate question. What is implied? An analogy: If you tell a child that the pen in his hand is a gun, he will start asking questions about the pen thinking that it is a gun. "How does it shoot? How can such a small bullet kill a person? Does it take batteries? etc etc etc". Technically, he is asking good questions. However, such questions only apply to a gun. In our case, the atheists here are the children, G-d is the pen, and they're asking questions about the pen thinking that it's a gun.

Your doing the same. Your attributing properties to God, and then say that atheists shouldn't. Why?

Please understand that G-d is not a gun. Being beyond time, space, and all other properties of matter which are unknown to us, it is foolish to even ask questions like "Who created G-d". We don't even know what G-d is, how can you ask questions about His Being?


Same as above

Hopefully I have settled that issue. Now, let us move on:

No you haven't.

- 2. To my understanding, there are those among you who would like to argue that the universe never began, as did Aristotle and his friends. Rather, the beginning point of the "Big Bang" always existed, and that only at a certain point did it burst and expand to bring about the universe which we know today. In an attempt to refute this, I'd like to point at the fact that this is impossible because of the reason which I stressed in my opening statements: Keep in mind that nothing in the entire universe has ever come from nothing.

How do you know that?

The apple came from branch, the branch from the tree, and the tree from the ground. That being said, we can conclude that the beginning point of the Big Bang before the actual explosion shares the same properties.

No we can't, because the Big Bang's origin was a singularity, where the laws of the universe break down.

That being said, we're back to square one: Where did it come from? There is one possibility and that is that it came from something which is not confined to the laws of time and space, which is, God.

That's a baseless assumption. Sure, the Big Bang could have had a cause, but how do you know it was a supernatural being above laws of physics? Any guess is as valid as another.

- 3. One of you mentioned evolution, speaking of it as a scientific fact, giving me the "benefit of the doubt" for not denying evolution. I know this is very off topic, but I'd like to destroy evolution in its tracks in order to clear the road from any confusion.

Make my day.

- Important to note, evolution has NEVER been proven.

Not 100% true, no. But it doesn't need to be.

Richard Dawkins and his friends consistently lie when they boast over having proven their ridiculous theory, which has been refuted a number of times already in many different ways.

Ad Hominem.

The entire theory of evolution is all speculation, not evidence. A scientist takes theory A and theory B which have been proven to be true, and so he assumes that theory C is true, because it is closely related to the first two theories. In our case, this would be climate adaptation, which is somehow used as an evidence that there was a time when men had tails and swung around in trees. Here are some of the refutations which I have come across in regard to this odious theory:

No, there is also fossil evidence too.

FIRST REFUTATION - THE STOMACH The human stomach, in the simplest terms possible, is nothing but a lump of meat. When a person eats a steak, which is another lump of meat, meat B descends into meat A. Then, the digestive process begins. Acids begin decomposing meat B (the steak), but for some reason, they don't decompose meat A (the stomach). Why? To be honest, I don't know myself. However, I believe that it is safe to assume that the stomach has a protective mechanism against its own acids.
My question is: If evolution were true, and we all descend from a creature which once-upon-a-time had no stomach, and then later evolved and developed a stomach with the digestive system described above, shouldn't all life have been destroyed by its own acids before it had the chance to evolve and develop the trait of this protective mechanism which I have mentioned above?

For argument's sake, say that this protective mechanism is a second layer which protects the inner softer part of the stomach from the acids. Shouldn't we have all died out before we developed this second layer?

No. The digestive system was gradual. Not all organisms started developing acid based digestion right away. Also, animals developed acid in their stomachs as a protection against microbes, where animals with weak and non-acidic stomachs died out while animals with stronger and more acidic stomachs lived. Eventually, the stomach had a duel purpose of both protecti
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:49:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I replied to you, you can return the courtesy. Otherwise, I view your group reply as lazy, underhanded Gish Gallop. I'm not willing to waste my time if you're not willing to make the effort.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 5:05:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing.
How can this rule be verified or falsified? If it cannot be falsified, how is it valid?

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator.
Which logic textbook is that, please? How can this rule be verified or falsified? If it cannot be falsified, how is it valid?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

Actually, I don't think it's just atheists who'll disagree with these rules, Talmid.

But in addition to needing to address the validity of these unreferenced rules, you're missing a key step...

Let's assume the universe created. You've yet to show that the creation is by a single creator, or how we'd prove that, but let's also assume for the moment that it's a single creator.

What is it about creating a universe that makes a creator worthy of worship as a god? Bear in mind that men have worshiped nearly everything as a god -- animals, mountains, sea, weather, other men, emotions, abstract ideas. What makes a creator worthy of worship? What would make it unworthy?
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:11:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 11:10:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/10/2016 7:59:32 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:19:16 PM, DPMartin wrote:

There"s no flaw in your belief, but it"s not what the insistent denier wants. Because the insistent denier wants justified reasons to judge for themselves what is good. If there is "no God" then there is no reason for faith or hope in something other then fulfillment of what they want. So the only proof they claim to want, they know God will never do, until the day come.


So be ready for what is obvious to you to be denied and argued for deniable constantly. Consider the tactic of the serpent in the garden and you will see it used here over and over again.

I don't want god not to believe because I can decide what is good, but simply because of a lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies.

According to who and who"s requirements and according to who"s judgement? Wouldn"t that be you? Your own requirement of proof. Which you know you are not going to get, correct? God does not have to meet your conditions of proof in order to be, does He? But as you say He has to before you would believe, correct? Therfore where is it that I was incorrect in the reasoning behide those who insist to deny?

I don't know how much evidence I need to believe in god. I do know however, that I need more than absolutely nothing (which is what there is now). You are technically right that God doesn't have to meet my conditions of proof to exist, but that is not evidence that god exists. This is completely unrelated to what is or is not good.

I don't insist to deny. I just have no reason to believe.

To clarify that: I can say that I have a pink unicorn in my garage. You won't believe me, because there is no evidence for it. Does that mean that you insist to deny? No. It's just a rational position. The fact that theoretically the unicorn could exist doesn't mean that you are insisting to deny. You are still just a rational person.

Hope and faith are simple and easy, reasons to not believe are complicated and constantly the work of men to justify.

You might actually be right here. faith is easy. There is a guy up in the sky there to help when things go bad. There is no personal responsibility. Even dying is not scary, because there is a literally perfect place you go. All that you need to do is follow the rules. I can imagine that it's comforting. However, that is also not evidence for god.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 12:25:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 11:57:54 PM, talmid wrote:

- 1. I said that nothing comes from nothing, and that where there is a creation there must be a creator. The children here argued that this principle must also apply to God, ignoring the fact that God is not a thing (which disqualifies the nothing comes from nothing rule) nor is He a creation (which disqualifies the wherever there is a creation there must be a creator.

This is just a really cheap cop-out: Just saying that god doesn't fall under the same rules as everything else. That argument can be made to prove literally every ridiculous claim: There is a magical bunny hopping around in the nothingness of space. That may seem impossible, but he is magical and therefore doesn't have to follow the rules of logic. Just try to disprove the existence of this bunny: You can't, because the
magic can literally explain everything. You do the same for god here. If you accept that god can just happen to exist or happen to start existing, why can't matter/energy just start existing? God pulled it out of nothing, why can't something like quantummechanics do the same?

It is needless to say that us puny and insignificant humans cannot comprehend even a fracture of G-d's glory. When people ask "Who created G-d" or "How did G-d come into existence", it is an illegitimate question. What is implied? An analogy: If you tell a child that the pen in his hand is a gun, he will start asking questions about the pen thinking that it is a gun. "How does it shoot? How can such a small bullet kill a person? Does it take batteries? etc etc etc". Technically, he is asking good questions. However, such questions only apply to a gun. In our case, the atheists here are the children, G-d is the pen, and they're asking questions about the pen thinking that it's a gun. Please understand that G-d is not a gun. Being beyond time, space, and all other properties of matter which are unknown to us, it is foolish to even ask questions like "Who created G-d". We don't even know what G-d is, how can you ask questions about His Being?

Once again, saying that he is outside of space and time and all properties of matter is just a cheap cop-out.

Hopefully I have settled that issue. Now, let us move on:

- 3. One of you mentioned evolution, speaking of it as a scientific fact, giving me the "benefit of the doubt" for not denying evolution. I know this is very off topic, but I'd like to destroy evolution in its tracks in order to clear the road from any confusion.


I won't go into why you are wrong, but suffice it to say that you are totally and utterly mistaken. I could give you heaps and heaps of evidence and discuss with you for ages, but that would probably be a waste of time. Evolution is real: We have the fossils to prove it. We have the DNA to prove it. We have the obersvations to prove it. We have the logic to prove it (genes replicate, sometimes they mutate, and logic dictates that the mutations that are beneficial will spread through the population).

Complex organs such as the stomach are not created in one random mutation, but in very small increments. It probably started of as a concentration of some food dissolving bacteria or something, and gradually the acidity increased due to mutations. Increased acidity was only beneficial in combination with a stomach that could handle it, so those two gradually evolved side by side. Similar explanations can be given for all of your examples.

I'll stop here, but to summarize: god is outside reality is just a cop out. God is not necessary. There is no evidence for god.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:37:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Yes it fun to make rules, I can do that too.

Here are some rules we can make too..............

1) Causality happens within the context of time ( there was no time before the universe therefore the universe has no cause.

Also you just assert that there is no other solution than an intelligent creator, why not a cause/s absent intent ?


Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

Circular reasoning, creation here means something made with intent, so all your saying is something which is made with intent is made with intent. You just hide that meaning in the word "creation" then declare something in the natural world a creation and way la instant proof of intelligent design.

Also you have taken human made things which are obviously intelligently designed..........by humans no less, then you try to make some connection to the natural world and say ah ha that is also intelligently designed.

Seriously these arguments are rubbish, I mean like refuted a very very very long time ago.

Paleys watch says hello.................if you don't know what that is look it up.


There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

No luck needed, same ole junk, don't worry you will learn...............or maybe not.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 9:00:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 11:57:54 PM, talmid wrote:
RESPONSUM PT 1
I apologize for being unable to answer you all personally and directly. I'm just terrible at this quoting business. Let's try to sate all of you at once:
Here are some of the arguments which I am seeing:

- 1. I said that nothing comes from nothing, and that where there is a creation there must be a creator. The children here argued that this principle must also apply to God, ignoring the fact that God is not a thing (which disqualifies the nothing comes from nothing rule) nor is He a creation (which disqualifies the wherever there is a creation there must be a creator. I believe I addressed these issues before on a previous thread, titled "Theists, How did God come into existence?" I'll just paste my reply from there to here, so that everyone can have a clearer understanding of what God is. I said: Something that people in general fail to understand is that G-d never "came into existence". Please note:
1) He has no body or form whatsoever, not even a form of ethereal light contrary to what some people believe. He is beyond ALL properties of time and space.
2) He is beyond ALL properties of time and space. He is the master of metaphysics, physics, mathematics, and everything else which involves the composure of our universe. Two plus one only equals three because that is how G-d arranged it to be. He can rearrange it at will.
3) After millions of years of calculating, not even the most powerful supercomputer will be able to comprehend even the dirt of His nail. It is needless to say that our limited minds will never be able to fully understand what G-d is. Not even the angels can fully comprehend the glory of G-d. There are ten kinds of angels, each one having a higher rank than the other. They are the Chayot, Ophanim, Erelim, Hashmallim, Seraphim, Malachim, Elokim, Bnei Elokim, Cherubim, and Ishim (Ishim literally means "men" to indicate that they are the closest to men). The ones mentioned first are closer to G-d, and the ones mentioned last are the furthest from Him. The Ishim have the lowest understanding and comprehension of G-d, and the Chayot have the highest understanding and comprehension. Even the Chayot don't FULLY understand what G-d is.

It is needless to say that us puny and insignificant humans cannot comprehend even a fracture of G-d's glory. When people ask "Who created G-d" or "How did G-d come into existence", it is an illegitimate question. What is implied? An analogy: If you tell a child that the pen in his hand is a gun, he will start asking questions about the pen thinking that it is a gun. "How does it shoot? How can such a small bullet kill a person? Does it take batteries? etc etc etc". Technically, he is asking good questions. However, such questions only apply to a gun. In our case, the atheists here are the children, G-d is the pen, and they're asking questions about the pen thinking that it's a gun. Please understand that G-d is not a gun. Being beyond time, space, and all other properties of matter which are unknown to us, it is foolish to even ask questions like "Who created G-d". We don't even know what G-d is, how can you ask questions about His Being?


Hopefully I have settled that issue. Now, let us move on:

- 2. To my understanding, there are those among you who would like to argue that the universe never began, as did Aristotle and his friends. Rather, the beginning point of the "Big Bang" always existed, and that only at a certain point did it burst and expand to bring about the universe which we know today. In an attempt to refute this, I'd like to point at the fact that this is impossible because of the reason which I stressed in my opening statements: Keep in mind that nothing in the entire universe has ever come from nothing. The apple came from branch, the branch from the tree, and the tree from the ground. That being said, we can conclude that the beginning point of the Big Bang before the actual explosion shares the same properties. That being said, we're back to square one: Where did it come from? There is one possibility and that is that it came from something which is not confined to the laws of time and space, which is, God.

- 3. One of you mentioned evolution, speaking of it as a scientific fact, giving me the "benefit of the doubt" for not denying evolution. I know this is very off topic, but I'd like to destroy evolution in its tracks in order to clear the road from any confusion.

- Important to note, evolution has NEVER been proven. Richard Dawkins and his friends consistently lie when they boast over having proven their ridiculous theory, which has been refuted a number of times already in many different ways. The entire theory of evolution is all speculation, not evidence. A scientist takes theory A and theory B which have been proven to be true, and so he assumes that theory C is true, because it is closely related to the first two theories. In our case, this would be climate adaptation, which is somehow used as an evidence that there was a time when men had tails and swung around in trees. Here are some of the refutations which I have come across in regard to this odious theory:

FIRST REFUTATION - THE STOMACH The human stomach, in the simplest terms possible, is nothing but a lump of meat. When a person eats a steak, which is another lump of meat, meat B descends into meat A. Then, the digestive process begins. Acids begin decomposing meat B (the steak), but for some reason, they don't decompose meat A (the stomach). Why? To be honest, I don't know myself. However, I believe that it is safe to assume that the stomach has a protective mechanism against its own acids. My question is: If evolution were true, and we all descend from a creature which once-upon-a-time had no stomach, and then later evolved and developed a stomach with the digestive system described above, shouldn't all life have been destroyed by its own acids before it had the chance to evolve and develop the trait of this protective mechanism which I have mentioned above? For argument's sake, say that this protective mechanism is a second layer which protects the inner softer part of the stomach from the acids. Shouldn't we have all died out before we developed this second layer?

I happened to come up with that refutation myself. The following ones are not mine, and so I will link you to outside sites where they can be found. The reason why I'm posting a link instead of just explaining it to you hear is because I'm running out of characters and I fear that I won't be able to finish. Also, I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. Now, that being said: Here it is

2. Evolution vs giraffe - http://creation.com...

3. Evolution vs my salt shaker - http://www.icr.org...

4. Evolution vs dinosaur eggs - http://www.hidabrut.com...

5. Evolution vs Dr. Robert Gentry - https://www.youtube.com...

Here are a bunch of other objections to evolution -https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm looking forward to some more replies. Also I apologize if I missed any of your questions or objections. Please PM me if I missed you, my intent here was to cover all general issues. Obviously I can't address you all, especially considering my limited amount of characters.

Shalom! https://www.youtube.com...

Some "Muslim" tried to say "Islam is peace", here is what I said:
"Really? That is what you have to come up with, you haven"t proven anything, all you said is "Islam is good, I say so," you are not proving anything but the absolute ignorance that is the liberal television. Saying a lion is
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 9:09:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

Your going to have to fend off "atheists" trying to say that God needed to be created, one theory is that God is a concept, kind of like a poltergeist, I don't know, it came from 1st John where he said "God is love", as i some kind of manifestation of it, it's strange. I had a theory, that basically God started out as a minuscule thing but with the ability to give himself any amount of power below what he currently had, since this was before time he basically expanded infinitely because infinite "time" was available before time, so he basically snapped into existence, and since this was before time, he was "always there", but he was also created, by himself.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 9:17:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 11:57:54 PM, talmid wrote:
RESPONSUM PT 1
I apologize for being unable to answer you all personally and directly. I'm just terrible at this quoting business. Let's try to sate all of you at once:
Here are some of the arguments which I am seeing:

- 1. I said that nothing comes from nothing, and that where there is a creation there must be a creator. The children here argued that this principle must also apply to God, ignoring the fact that God is not a thing (which disqualifies the nothing comes from nothing rule) nor is He a creation (which disqualifies the wherever there is a creation there must be a creator. I believe I addressed these issues before on a previous thread, titled "Theists, How did God come into existence?" I'll just paste my reply from there to here, so that everyone can have a clearer understanding of what God is. I said: Something that people in general fail to understand is that G-d never "came into existence". Please note:
1) He has no body or form whatsoever, not even a form of ethereal light contrary to what some people believe. He is beyond ALL properties of time and space.
2) He is beyond ALL properties of time and space. He is the master of metaphysics, physics, mathematics, and everything else which involves the composure of our universe. Two plus one only equals three because that is how G-d arranged it to be. He can rearrange it at will.
3) After millions of years of calculating, not even the most powerful supercomputer will be able to comprehend even the dirt of His nail. It is needless to say that our limited minds will never be able to fully understand what G-d is. Not even the angels can fully comprehend the glory of G-d. There are ten kinds of angels, each one having a higher rank than the other. They are the Chayot, Ophanim, Erelim, Hashmallim, Seraphim, Malachim, Elokim, Bnei Elokim, Cherubim, and Ishim (Ishim literally means "men" to indicate that they are the closest to men). The ones mentioned first are closer to G-d, and the ones mentioned last are the furthest from Him. The Ishim have the lowest understanding and comprehension of G-d, and the Chayot have the highest understanding and comprehension. Even the Chayot don't FULLY understand what G-d is.

It is needless to say that us puny and insignificant humans cannot comprehend even a fracture of G-d's glory. When people ask "Who created G-d" or "How did G-d come into existence", it is an illegitimate question. What is implied? An analogy: If you tell a child that the pen in his hand is a gun, he will start asking questions about the pen thinking that it is a gun. "How does it shoot? How can such a small bullet kill a person? Does it take batteries? etc etc etc". Technically, he is asking good questions. However, such questions only apply to a gun. In our case, the atheists here are the children, G-d is the pen, and they're asking questions about the pen thinking that it's a gun. Please understand that G-d is not a gun. Being beyond time, space, and all other properties of matter which are unknown to us, it is foolish to even ask questions like "Who created G-d". We don't even know what G-d is, how can you ask questions about His Being?


Hopefully I have settled that issue. Now, let us move on:

- 2. To my understanding, there are those among you who would like to argue that the universe never began, as did Aristotle and his friends. Rather, the beginning point of the "Big Bang" always existed, and that only at a certain point did it burst and expand to bring about the universe which we know today. In an attempt to refute this, I'd like to point at the fact that this is impossible because of the reason which I stressed in my opening statements: Keep in mind that nothing in the entire universe has ever come from nothing. The apple came from branch, the branch from the tree, and the tree from the ground. That being said, we can conclude that the beginning point of the Big Bang before the actual explosion shares the same properties. That being said, we're back to square one: Where did it come from? There is one possibility and that is that it came from something which is not confined to the laws of time and space, which is, God.

- 3. One of you mentioned evolution, speaking of it as a scientific fact, giving me the "benefit of the doubt" for not denying evolution. I know this is very off topic, but I'd like to destroy evolution in its tracks in order to clear the road from any confusion.

- Important to note, evolution has NEVER been proven. Richard Dawkins and his friends consistently lie when they boast over having proven their ridiculous theory, which has been refuted a number of times already in many different ways. The entire theory of evolution is all speculation, not evidence. A scientist takes theory A and theory B which have been proven to be true, and so he assumes that theory C is true, because it is closely related to the first two theories. In our case, this would be climate adaptation, which is somehow used as an evidence that there was a time when men had tails and swung around in trees. Here are some of the refutations which I have come across in regard to this odious theory:

FIRST REFUTATION - THE STOMACH The human stomach, in the simplest terms possible, is nothing but a lump of meat. When a person eats a steak, which is another lump of meat, meat B descends into meat A. Then, the digestive process begins. Acids begin decomposing meat B (the steak), but for some reason, they don't decompose meat A (the stomach). Why? To be honest, I don't know myself. However, I believe that it is safe to assume that the stomach has a protective mechanism against its own acids. My question is: If evolution were true, and we all descend from a creature which once-upon-a-time had no stomach, and then later evolved and developed a stomach with the digestive system described above, shouldn't all life have been destroyed by its own acids before it had the chance to evolve and develop the trait of this protective mechanism which I have mentioned above? For argument's sake, say that this protective mechanism is a second layer which protects the inner softer part of the stomach from the acids. Shouldn't we have all died out before we developed this second layer?

I happened to come up with that refutation myself. The following ones are not mine, and so I will link you to outside sites where they can be found. The reason why I'm posting a link instead of just explaining it to you hear is because I'm running out of characters and I fear that I won't be able to finish. Also, I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. Now, that being said: Here it is

2. Evolution vs giraffe - http://creation.com...

3. Evolution vs my salt shaker - http://www.icr.org...

4. Evolution vs dinosaur eggs - http://www.hidabrut.com...

5. Evolution vs Dr. Robert Gentry - https://www.youtube.com...

Here are a bunch of other objections to evolution -https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm looking forward to some more replies. Also I apologize if I missed any of your questions or objections. Please PM me if I missed you, my intent here was to cover all general issues. Obviously I can't address you all, especially considering my limited amount of characters.

Shalom! https://www.youtube.com...

Here's one you might want to see:
www.debate.org/debates/Evolution/54/
talmid
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 11:16:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
It is fruitless to continue so long as you believe there is no proof of God. Therefore I will bring you some of the proofs that I have. Note: This is but a bucket from the ocean.
I started writing a book but discovered that someone already did write the same thing that I wanted to write (Zamir Cohen's "The Coming Revolution"). Here is where I got up to until I stopped. Shalom:

INTRODUCTION:
There are many ways to prove that the Torah is divine, I am aware of six ways in total (1. new discoveries, same torah 2. torah codes, 3. archaeology 4. with logic, 5. fulfilled prophecies 6. scientific knowledge that nobody could have known).
I have many examples of all of the above, but I'm only going to be citing three of each, because I plan on writing a book and I don't want anyone plagiarizing my work. Also, of the six, only three will be used. Now, let us begin:

NEW DISCOVERIES, SAME TORAH:
ONE - STARS IN SKY:
Up until Galileo Galilei, everyone thought that there were maximum 10,000 stars in the sky, because when you look up at the stars, that is all your eye can see. Galilei created a new telescope, capable of seeing much further than the naked eye could have ever hoped for. To his surprise, he discovered that the moon, contrary to primitive belief, was not a smooth gemstone, rather it was uneven, rough, full of craters, etc. He also discovered that contrary to popular belief, there were MUCH more than 10,000 stars in the sky. There were millions upon millions upon millions. When he shared his discoveries, he was called a lunatic (LUNAtic) and put under house arrest. Now the fact that there are trillions of stars is set in place and eternally established as a scientific fact. What does the Bible say about this? (God was speaking to Abraham) "Indeed, I will surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore: and your offspring shall inherit the gate of its enemy" -Genesis 22:17. Critics like you used to make fun of this verse and torment the Jews saying, "Is your God blessing you or cursing you?! On one hand he says you'll be like the stars, which there are only 6-10,000 of, but on the other hand he said you will be like the grains of sand by the seashore, which there is a countless amount of!" Obviously, the Jews had nothing to answer. But NOW, we see how wrong they were. The Torah is always right, sometimes it just takes us 3000 years to figure it out. Also, if I might add, in the Oral Tradition of the Jews (The Babylonian Talmud, which was concluded in the year 700 according to the strictest opinion. Most others believe it was concluded in 500) says in Berakhot page 32b "The community of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed is He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! When a man divorces his wife and marries another, surely he remembers the deeds of his first! How can it be that you forgot about us?' Thereupon, The Holy One, Blessed is He, answered her: 'My daughter, twelve sections have I created in the firmament, and for each section I created 30 armies. In each army, I created 30 legions. In each legion, I created 30 rahaton. In each rahaton, I created 30 karton. In each karton, I created 30 gistera. In each gistera, I have attached 365,000 myriads of stars, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and all of them I have created only for you, and you have the audacity to say that I forgot about you?"
Let's do the math here. 12 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 365,000 x 10,000+ (one myriad is equivalent to 10,000. Since it uses myriads in the plural, we don't know how many myriads there were in total).
This leaves us with MINIMUM an 18 digit number, and MAXIMUM an unlimited number, corresponding perfectly with modern science which teaches that the amount of stars in the sky has a 24 digit number. Coincidence?

TWO - DAY OF CIRCUMCISION:
The Bible commands Jewish men to circumcise their sons on the 8th day of their lives. Why not a month later, or two months, when the baby is stronger and there is less chance of fatality? The answer is as follows: On the eighth day of a child's life and on no other day, he has a surplus of vitamin K (which reduces bleeding). The Creator of the World established it to be so in order to prevent unnecessary fatalities. Coincidence?
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 4:35:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 11:16:49 PM, talmid wrote:
It is fruitless to continue so long as you believe there is no proof of God. Therefore I will bring you some of the proofs that I have. Note: This is but a bucket from the ocean.
I started writing a book but discovered that someone already did write the same thing that I wanted to write (Zamir Cohen's "The Coming Revolution"). Here is where I got up to until I stopped. Shalom:

INTRODUCTION:
There are many ways to prove that the Torah is divine, I am aware of six ways in total (1. new discoveries, same torah 2. torah codes, 3. archaeology 4. with logic, 5. fulfilled prophecies 6. scientific knowledge that nobody could have known).
I have many examples of all of the above, but I'm only going to be citing three of each, because I plan on writing a book and I don't want anyone plagiarizing my work. Also, of the six, only three will be used. Now, let us begin:

NEW DISCOVERIES, SAME TORAH:
ONE - STARS IN SKY:
Up until Galileo Galilei, everyone thought that there were maximum 10,000 stars in the sky, because when you look up at the stars, that is all your eye can see. Galilei created a new telescope, capable of seeing much further than the naked eye could have ever hoped for. To his surprise, he discovered that the moon, contrary to primitive belief, was not a smooth gemstone, rather it was uneven, rough, full of craters, etc. He also discovered that contrary to popular belief, there were MUCH more than 10,000 stars in the sky. There were millions upon millions upon millions. When he shared his discoveries, he was called a lunatic (LUNAtic) and put under house arrest. Now the fact that there are trillions of stars is set in place and eternally established as a scientific fact. What does the Bible say about this? (God was speaking to Abraham) "Indeed, I will surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore: and your offspring shall inherit the gate of its enemy" -Genesis 22:17. Critics like you used to make fun of this verse and torment the Jews saying, "Is your God blessing you or cursing you?! On one hand he says you'll be like the stars, which there are only 6-10,000 of, but on the other hand he said you will be like the grains of sand by the seashore, which there is a countless amount of!" Obviously, the Jews had nothing to answer. But NOW, we see how wrong they were. The Torah is always right, sometimes it just takes us 3000 years to figure it out. Also, if I might add, in the Oral Tradition of the Jews (The Babylonian Talmud, which was concluded in the year 700 according to the strictest opinion. Most others believe it was concluded in 500) says in Berakhot page 32b "The community of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed is He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! When a man divorces his wife and marries another, surely he remembers the deeds of his first! How can it be that you forgot about us?' Thereupon, The Holy One, Blessed is He, answered her: 'My daughter, twelve sections have I created in the firmament, and for each section I created 30 armies. In each army, I created 30 legions. In each legion, I created 30 rahaton. In each rahaton, I created 30 karton. In each karton, I created 30 gistera. In each gistera, I have attached 365,000 myriads of stars, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and all of them I have created only for you, and you have the audacity to say that I forgot about you?"
Let's do the math here. 12 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 365,000 x 10,000+ (one myriad is equivalent to 10,000. Since it uses myriads in the plural, we don't know how many myriads there were in total).
This leaves us with MINIMUM an 18 digit number, and MAXIMUM an unlimited number, corresponding perfectly with modern science which teaches that the amount of stars in the sky has a 24 digit number. Coincidence?

TWO - DAY OF CIRCUMCISION:
The Bible commands Jewish men to circumcise their sons on the 8th day of their lives. Why not a month later, or two months, when the baby is stronger and there is less chance of fatality? The answer is as follows: On the eighth day of a child's life and on no other day, he has a surplus of vitamin K (which reduces bleeding). The Creator of the World established it to be so in order to prevent unnecessary fatalities. Coincidence?

Well yes the 8th day thingy I already knew, in fact almost every law is a hygiene law, or a safety law.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 4:41:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 1. The Greek philosophers established a rule: Nothing came from nothing. This means that nothing can appear out of thin air with no cause. For example, no apple has ever appeared out of thin air. That would be the apple coming from nothing. Apples come from trees, and trees come from the ground. Everything comes from something. In that case, where did the universe come from? In order to circumvent this issue, the Greek philosophers declared that the world always existed (and therefore did not need a cause). However, recent scientists have proven that the world has a beginning. How? Because the universe is constantly expanding. How does that prove anything? Because everything that expands must have originally began at one point, and the universe is no exception. If you hit rewind, the expansion of the universe must have began at once point (before the Earth was created). That being said, it does have a beginning. Now we are back to step 1. Where did it come from? Nothing comes from nothing right? There are no other solutions other than an intelligent creator who is beyond the laws of time and space.

Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator. When you see a shoe, there must be a shoemaker. Where you see a coat, there must be a weaver. No shoe exploded itself into existence: Another rule: The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. Let's elaborate: To make a shoe is easy. It doesn't take a genius to create a shoe. To make an F16 airplane however, you need to be a wee bit smarter. In that case, to make a universe, you need to literally be a god. And that is where G-d comes in. Your brain is composed of 30 trillion wires each of which are 1000th the size of a hair. If one or two of these wires were to stop working, your brain would shut off and you would die. That being said, how can it be that such a sophisticated creation came into existence without a creator? This is violating the two rules that we just mentioned: A. All creations have a creator and B. The more sophisticated the creation is, the more sophisticated the creator is. The brain is quite sophisticated, wouldn't you say?

There's a lot more I have to say, but I want to open up my discourses throughout the course of the debate, so that my words bear more weight. In the meantime, let's focus on this. Best of luck, atheists.

Normally (because most times it was Christians), you get an atheist writing a article about "there's no God", then the theists, who were Christians, coming up with ridiculous rebuttals, but here it is the Theist (you), writing an article about "God is real", and THE ATHEISTS coming up with ridiculous rebuttals! I love it!
Here is a video to add more stuff to your stuff you already have, it's Ben Carson, he's a neurosurgeon, running for president, and he's very genius:
https://www.youtube.com...
Gentorev
Posts: 2,903
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 5:13:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 5:22:33 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/10/2016 4:45:48 AM, talmid wrote:
Proof 2. There is a rule in logic: Wherever you see a creation, there must be a creator.

So someone created God. Great, then we've clarified that.

God is today as he always was, God is the only true constant, in that He is constantly evolving. Show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, and I will show to you a mind that has ceased to exist.

God who has evolved, began as energy which cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is eternal and can be converted into matter, which is reconverted back to energy, which is the two states of the eternal evolving God.

Atheists believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities and "coded chemistry, in just the short period of time that this universe has been in existence, but somehow refuse to accept that the eternal universal energy, which can be and is converted to universal matter, cannot develop mind within itself.

At the close of each period of universal activity, the collective mind of the Most High species to have evolved in that period enters into Logos as the Supreme Personality of Godhead to the eternal evolving Logos, which is the gathered information which expresses itself as another universal body in which the eternal mind continues to evolve.

The "LOGOS=WORD," is the essential divine reality of the Universe, the eternal spirit=mind from which all being originates and to which, all must return.

The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS". In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" who is the gathered information=spirit of the aeons, express' the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and does continue to evolve.

When the universe goes through "The Big Crunch," it is returned, with all its gathered information back to its original position in Space-time which is the Beginning of this three dimensional universe.

In the beginning of this cycle of universal activity, was the Logos in who was life/personality, and that life was the light of man, all the wisdom, knowledge and insight gained from the body of the most high=mankind in the physical creation: The supreme personality of Godhead to the Logos.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A living universal being who exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy/anti-matter, two different dimensions.

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, "The Great Day," which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by "Pralaya," a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. "Manvantara," is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, "Pralaya," is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the "GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE."

The English word "Generation," is translated from the Hebrew "toledoth" which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as "births," or "descendants," such as "These are the generations of Adam," or "these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; "These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc." And the "Great Day" in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who win the victory over the war that rages within the body of man, are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not win the victory are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in space-time, but not in our three dimensional time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the cycles of physical manifestation.

The scientific estimate of the life span of this universe is 300 billion years. Only some 14 billion years have passed since the last Big Bang, so this world is in its infancy and has not yet brought to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in it from the previous world in which,through the greatest of tribulations the brilliant light beings (The Son of Man) evolved.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 12:20:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/25/2016 11:16:49 PM, talmid wrote:
It is fruitless to continue so long as you believe there is no proof of God. Therefore I will bring you some of the proofs that I have. Note: This is but a bucket from the ocean.
I started writing a book but discovered that someone already did write the same thing that I wanted to write (Zamir Cohen's "The Coming Revolution"). Here is where I got up to until I stopped. Shalom:

INTRODUCTION:
There are many ways to prove that the Torah is divine, I am aware of six ways in total (1. new discoveries, same torah 2. torah codes, 3. archaeology 4. with logic, 5. fulfilled prophecies 6. scientific knowledge that nobody could have known).
I have many examples of all of the above, but I'm only going to be citing three of each, because I plan on writing a book and I don't want anyone plagiarizing my work. Also, of the six, only three will be used. Now, let us begin:

NEW DISCOVERIES, SAME TORAH:
ONE - STARS IN SKY:
Up until Galileo Galilei, everyone thought that there were maximum 10,000 stars in the sky, because when you look up at the stars, that is all your eye can see. Galilei created a new telescope, capable of seeing much further than the naked eye could have ever hoped for. To his surprise, he discovered that the moon, contrary to primitive belief, was not a smooth gemstone, rather it was uneven, rough, full of craters, etc. He also discovered that contrary to popular belief, there were MUCH more than 10,000 stars in the sky. There were millions upon millions upon millions. When he shared his discoveries, he was called a lunatic (LUNAtic) and put under house arrest. Now the fact that there are trillions of stars is set in place and eternally established as a scientific fact. What does the Bible say about this? (God was speaking to Abraham) "Indeed, I will surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore: and your offspring shall inherit the gate of its enemy" -Genesis 22:17. Critics like you used to make fun of this verse and torment the Jews saying, "Is your God blessing you or cursing you?! On one hand he says you'll be like the stars, which there are only 6-10,000 of, but on the other hand he said you will be like the grains of sand by the seashore, which there is a countless amount of!" Obviously, the Jews had nothing to answer. But NOW, we see how wrong they were. The Torah is always right, sometimes it just takes us 3000 years to figure it out. Also, if I might add, in the Oral Tradition of the Jews (The Babylonian Talmud, which was concluded in the year 700 according to the strictest opinion. Most others believe it was concluded in 500) says in Berakhot page 32b "The community of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed is He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! When a man divorces his wife and marries another, surely he remembers the deeds of his first! How can it be that you forgot about us?' Thereupon, The Holy One, Blessed is He, answered her: 'My daughter, twelve sections have I created in the firmament, and for each section I created 30 armies. In each army, I created 30 legions. In each legion, I created 30 rahaton. In each rahaton, I created 30 karton. In each karton, I created 30 gistera. In each gistera, I have attached 365,000 myriads of stars, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and all of them I have created only for you, and you have the audacity to say that I forgot about you?"
Let's do the math here. 12 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 365,000 x 10,000+ (one myriad is equivalent to 10,000. Since it uses myriads in the plural, we don't know how many myriads there were in total).
This leaves us with MINIMUM an 18 digit number, and MAXIMUM an unlimited number, corresponding perfectly with modern science which teaches that the amount of stars in the sky has a 24 digit number. Coincidence?

TWO - DAY OF CIRCUMCISION:
The Bible commands Jewish men to circumcise their sons on the 8th day of their lives. Why not a month later, or two months, when the baby is stronger and there is less chance of fatality? The answer is as follows: On the eighth day of a child's life and on no other day, he has a surplus of vitamin K (which reduces bleeding). The Creator of the World established it to be so in order to prevent unnecessary fatalities. Coincidence?

http://www.crossroad.to...
lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 9:22:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
you're the evidence of god.

you didn't exist always.
you exist now.
things in the world are like you.
world is made of it's things and is not something other than those.

how are the things that for them existence is a possibility, created?

not by something that existence is a must for it?

(my grammar might not have been perfect)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:42:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:22:03 PM, lightseeker wrote:
you're the evidence of god.

Wrong, we are all the evidence of evolution.

you didn't exist always.
you exist now.

Yes, and we all evolved from descendants.

things in the world are like you.

Yes, other animals, we are animals, as well.

world is made of it's things and is not something other than those.

Gibberish.

how are the things that for them existence is a possibility, created?

What are you talking about?

not by something that existence is a must for it?

(my grammar might not have been perfect)

It's terrible.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
lightseeker
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 5:21:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 12:42:36 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:22:03 PM, lightseeker wrote:
you're the evidence of god.
Wrong, we are all the evidence of evolution.
even if you believe that's the case, you mean evolution was created by matter?

you didn't exist always.
you exist now.
Yes, and we all evolved from descendants.
first of all, no one is denying evolution in it's general sense. by i ask you a question, you mean you were evolved from monkeys right? then how come monkeys which are not evolved exist now? who enforced and created rules of evolution? Human DNA is more like pigs than monkeys (need citation on this)

you're proving my point. your descendants also were creatures who didn't exist, lived in a time, and then died.

things in the world are like you.
Yes, other animals, we are animals, as well.
stones too are animals?

world is made of it's things and is not something other than those.
Gibberish.
you mean other things exist in the world which are not part of it?

how are the things that for them existence is a possibility, created?
What are you talking about?
meaning your existence is not essential, it's a possibility. humans are not defined as creatures who always exist.

not by something that existence is a must for it?
(my grammar might not have been perfect)
It's terrible.
as for your reasoning.