Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by: sydneykjones

Of course! Creation cannot exists without creator.

  God is the Only creator of this universe. If he will mot have to exists then nothing will be here at first place. Creation can't come into existence without creator. There is not a single case where anything has come into existence at its own. The very idea of God is clear, we say God in everything from the nature to life to death. If considered, anything can be ignored but we do have brain to use as much as needed. So, when we go deep into the thought, it comes clear that God's existence is fact.
LadyStanhope says2015-03-30T19:09:20.067
Circular logic fallacy- to claim something is a "creation" you must pre-assume there is a creator, which is the very thing you're trying to prove. Not that I expected actual sound logic here.
Ae872 says2015-03-30T20:28:04.837
One word: science
kman100 says2015-03-30T21:44:32.667
So the logic here is this:

Everything must have a cause
Creation must have a cause
The cause of creation must be a magical sky being.

See the gap in the logic here? Everything we know of in the universe has arose naturally. There is no reason to think that the universe didn't also arise naturally.
MitchV says2015-03-31T09:14:11.880
@SASdqi

"There is not a single case where anything has come into existence at its own."

Snowflakes are a good example. Anyone who has ever looked closely at a snowflake can see how intricate, symmetric, complex, and amazing one is yet they can come into existence by the billions a second all on their own. Are you saying that a god takes the time to design and create every single snowflake or does he task a bunch of angels to carve them for him. The basic way a snowflake forms it that water collects around a singular speck of dust. As it falls in the cold air and freezes, it collects more water that also freezes each time forming crystals. It is often kept airborne for several minutes and the longer it stays airborne, the larger and more complex it grows. Normally, this takes about 15 - 45 minutes but imagine how vast and complex it would be if it stayed airborne for days, weeks, or years.
Clearly if something as intricate as a snowflake can come into existence on it's own in countless numbers, something a bit more complex like a life form can come into existence over a longer period of time. Over a very long period of time, like billions of years, something as complex as a human being can come into existence on it's own.
GainWisdom says2015-04-01T16:23:49.827
How does nothing make something? It can't. God is a rational conclusion for most people to better come with an understanding of the universe. There is nothing wrong with the belief that, "In the beginning God..." That is where ninety percent of the world's population presupposition begins. :)
MitchV says2015-04-02T01:11:50.857
@GainWisdom:

"How does nothing make something? It can't."

Who creates snowflakes? Nobody, they form highly complex structures as a result of their surrounding without any intelligent being required.

"God is a rational conclusion for most people to better come with an understanding of the universe."

God as a conclusion is never rational but just a plea of ignorance. Example: If you are in a building and feel a chill, what is more rational, that a the spirit of a dead person (ghost) has adjusted the air temperature through some mystical force or that the building has a draft?

"There is nothing wrong with the belief that, "In the beginning God..." That is where ninety percent of the world's population presupposition begins."

That is an example of ad populum, the idea that if the majority determines fact. At one point, the majority of people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Does that mean that the sun did revolve around the earth? Of course not.
GainWisdom says2015-04-02T01:51:15.303
@MitchV:

1. So let me see if I am understanding you correctly, snowflakes form as a result of something??? Okay, so did the universe. I'm not sure what you were trying to say right there. Because of a result, snow falls? Okay. Because of a result(God), the universe began to exist.

God certainly can be a rational conclusion:
1. With a law such as the law of gravity, there has to be a law giver to enforce the law.
2. The fact that there are objective truths lead me to believe God is the standard of right and wrong.
MitchV says2015-04-03T01:25:09.913
@GainWisdom:

Snowflakes form because of some factors, not someone or some being, unless you count artificial snow. The air and clouds have no intent on creating snow yet snow occurs. The universe and life also formed without intent as both also formed as by factors and not someone or some being.

1, Scientific laws are not like written laws. They are formulas that are used to calculate natural events.
2. What "objective truths" are you talking about? Clearly right and wrong or good and evil are subjective as they vary from person to person.
kman100 says2015-04-03T02:19:33.047
Obviously something can't come from nothing. The universe came from something. However, there is no reason to beleive that god was that something. Everything we know in nature has formed naturally. Why should the universe be different?
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-05T17:29:15.780
" Everything we know in nature has formed naturally. Why should the universe be different?"

Nature is something. If the universe formed naturally, then it could not have formed from nothing. That is the hole in your reasoning.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-05T17:30:48.927
That the universe formed from nothing is evidence that the universe came about from a metaphysical source.
MitchV says2015-04-06T02:44:16.277
@pastorrexiteke.Com:

"Nature is something. If the universe formed naturally, then it could not have formed from nothing. That is the hole in your reasoning."

Yes, the universe was caused by something, not someone or some being. That is the hole in your reasoning.

"That the universe formed from nothing is evidence that the universe came about from a metaphysical source."

Though that could depend on your idea of something/nothing. Seeing that even atoms could not form before the big bang, you could say that a physical object may not have existed, but seeing that all matter did exist in some form smaller than the subatomic level. I would say the universe did not come from nothing. Seeing that it did not come from nothing makes a metaphysical source unnecessary.
Again, Genesis is pretty funny of how God created light on the first day yet didn't make any light sources until the fourth day. God not only fails astronomy but star basics 101. I can just imagine him sitting in class wearing a dunce cap. What a moron.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-06T03:26:23.310
I wasn't directing my comment to you and neither did you explain how a universe from nothing could still have occurred naturally. You ventured down some of your pseudo scientific reasoning, to which I wouldn't even pay attn seeing that it lacks any credible scientific backing.
MitchV says2015-04-06T19:17:17.803
@pastorrexiteke.Com:

Seeing that you don't define who your replying to you could be directing your comments at anyone.

"neither did you explain how a universe from nothing could still have occurred naturally. "

Yet another example of how theist have issues with logic when it shows their faith is false. According to science, the universe did exist as a singularity before the big bang. This means that they say it did not come from nothing as you so poorly understand it. Actually the idea of a collapsing universe causing another big bang is not my theory but that of scientists. They theorize that after the universe reaches it's limit, the process would reverse as I said. They call it the Big Crunch. They further have theorized that the big crunch would trigger another big bang. I have some sources to show this.
Http://phys.Org/news169481109.Html
http://www.Windows2universe.Org/the_universe/Crunch.Html
http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Big_Crunch

As I have said before, because theist rely on something to be held as fact without evidence, any actual fact that shows their believed fact as false is considered false to them as two contradictory facts can not exist at the same time. Because of this logical paradox, theist tend to cope with real facts by misunderstanding them to the point that they are false such as the idea that there was nothing before the big bang.

As far as what I said about God claiming that light existed before a light source, That is so illogical that obviously their god would have no understanding of any scientific principle even though he would supposedly caused them to exist.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-07T11:07:29.903
The big crunch is only a possibility of the fate of the universe. This does not verify anything and has nothing to do with a universe beginning from an absolute nothing.

Scientists today are sure that the universe began in a big bang. They are certain that space, time, and matter began in the big bang. This is the science of today. I challenge you to show any source that states otherwise. And whatever source would be ending in a .Gov or .Edu.

When you present such a source, only then may we continue this discussion.
MitchV says2015-04-07T15:03:44.007
@pastorrexiteke.Com:

"This does not verify anything and has nothing to do with a universe beginning from an absolute nothing."

That is because your idea that the universe began from nothing is false as I have said many times. In other words, the only thing that you have shown to be false is your own false ideas about the big bang. Because you feel that your false ideas are wrong you think that it proves the big bang is wrong.

"I challenge you to show any source that states otherwise. And whatever source would be ending in a .Gov or .Edu."

"The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface."
http://www.Ugcs.Caltech.Edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/

Clearly this shows your belief that the big bang theory claims the universe started from nothing is false as even though it was at one point smaller than a pore on your skin, it still existed. (note: the page has .Edu in it.

Further, the Big Crunch is also stated of such sites.
Http://burro.Astr.Cwru.Edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.Html

As far as the existence of time being caused by the big bang, it is believed that they are talking about relative time or time as we know it. Seeing that it would be impossible to have any information prior to the big bang, time it'self would be irrelevant. It would be much like the concept of gravity. If all matter in the universe exists as a singularity, gravity itself would be trivial as there would be nothing else for it to act upon.

"When you present such a source, only then may we continue this discussion."

I have shown such sources that have not only backed my claim but have shown your misconception. A misconception that likely resulted form having a logical paradox.
GainWisdom says2015-04-09T02:14:29.077
@MitchV:

Why wouldn't you want God to exist? Just out of curiosity...
MitchV says2015-04-09T13:35:30.910
@GainWisdom:

"Why wouldn't you want God to exist? Just out of curiosity..."

Actually, I would like the stories to be true. I would also like the Harry Potter books to be true but that does not make them fact.
GainWisdom says2015-04-09T14:21:17.830
@MitchV:

How much proof is enough proof for you to believe in God?
MitchV says2015-04-10T00:35:15.027
@GainWisdom:

Proof is proof but you don't even have any valid evidence that a god exists much less yours. Thing is, the lack of evidence is actually proof that they don't exist.
GainWisdom says2015-04-10T02:32:32.323
@MitchV:

I disagree with you about the evidence. I believe there is plenty of evidence that supports a God.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-10T08:25:57.577
http://www.Ugcs.Caltech.Edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/

The above url appears incorrect; nothing appeared. Since this discussion is unrelated to the big crunch, the second Website (Http://burro.Astr.Cwru.Edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.Html) is irrelevant.

It would also help to cite the specific statement or paragraph that supports your position.

So, the burden is still on you.
MitchV says2015-04-10T16:59:33.927
@GainWisdom:

What do you call "evidence that supports a God."?

@pastorrexiteke.Com:

http://www.Ugcs.Caltech.Edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
The above worked for me. Just tried it.

Seeing that a prior Big Crunch may have lead to our Big Bang, it means that something else could have caused is making it unnecessary for a god to exist. Seeing that it is a plausible explanation to the existence of our universe means that a god does not have to exist. In other words, it is highly relevant. You just don't want it to be.

"It would also help to cite the specific statement or paragraph that supports your position."

Actually, I did quote the one page of the first site. It is the part that begins "The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. Etc"

http://burro.Astr.Cwru.Edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_death.Html
States the following about the big crunch:
"In this case, the universe contains enough mass - it is above the critical density - to stop its expansion. Once it stops expanding, it will start to contract. Slowly at first, and then faster and faster, the universe will contract and galaxies will come closer to each other. Eventually, everything will merge, for the universe will no longer be large enough for separate galaxies or stars. As it continues to shrink, the universe will heat to huge temperatures, and everything will be compacted into a black hole. Finally, at the end, the universe will be as it began - an infinitely small, infinitely dense, and infinitely hot point."

"So, the burden is still on you."

Seeing that you are making the greater claim "God exists" the burden of proof is on you. I make no great claim but dismiss yours.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchen's Razor
GainWisdom says2015-04-10T21:57:09.650
Well to begin with people have different presuppositions which will lead us to different end points. Everyone starts with presupposition.

However, I believe the problem of suffering only leads to more evidence for the existence of God. Also, since there is a moral law... It leads to more evidence of the existence of God. I would be glad to offer more information upon request.
MitchV says2015-04-11T01:08:43.357
@GainWisdom:

What type of presuppositions are you talking about?
Suffering is evidence of a god? Really? Suffering is a tool of survival. Pain is something that keeps us from further injury. In other words, suffering is required in the survival of a species.
Morals are also related to the survival of a species. The closer a person is to what we see as our species, the more we protect them.
In the end, none of this is evidence of a god, just things that people are told are from a god.
GainWisdom says2015-04-11T01:38:01.590
I start with the presupposition that there is a God. You don't. Your ideas are going proceed that which there is no God. You have the idea that there is no God therefore, the arguments you present with that there is no God is going to outweigh the arguments for God. It works the opposite way for myself. You are already predetermining your thoughts, as myself am as well.

When someone assumes there is a such thing as evil, you are also assuming there to be a such thing as good. Good can exist without evil. However, evil can't exist without good. In other words, evil in a sense is parasitic to that which is good. A parasite(evil) needs a host(goodness) to survive. A host(goodness) doesn't need a parasite(evil) to survive. But yet, without the host(goodness) a parasite(evil) can't survive. Do you get what I am saying?

I don't follow what you are saying when you say, "Morals are also related to the survival of a species." Are you saying us as a whole or us from many different cultures?

The fact is, people from all walks of life may see their way of living better than the rest... Morals may be to an extent a bit more relative to a certain culture. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective moral truth. If morals were subjective and I knew you personally.... Let's say I saw you standing in line somewhere and the line was really long... If I came up and cut a lot of people including you... You have no right telling me that what I was doing was wrong. But, obviously cutting in line is wrong. That may not be the best example but at least you can get an idea of what I am trying to say.
GainWisdom says2015-04-11T01:40:01.450
**When talking about good and evil... God is the standard to that which is good. Sin is the evil.**
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-11T07:43:07.903
"The above worked for me. Just tried it."

Tried it again and...Nothing. What can I say. It's not my duty to correct your urls.

The quote about the big crunch is again unrelated to whether a big bang really began from "nothing."

Seeing you will just continue wasting my time, and that the discussion has progressed into another subject, I'll say no more for now.
MitchV says2015-04-11T12:56:19.480
@GainWisdom:

"I start with the presupposition that there is a God. You don't."

Actually, before I came to the conclusion that gods do not exist, I was a Christian and believed in God. One day I was responding to a question about the existence of ghosts and I replied with reasoning as to why ghosts can not exist. I did the same with other creatures of myth such as vampires and werewolves. Each time using the same type of reasoning. My main method is using known facts and/or common knowledge then using logic to determine a conclusion. Then one day, I did the same on the topic of gods. The first step in using scientific reasoning to determine fact is to dismiss all preconceived notions. This is because if you go into it with expectations, your expectations will guide you instead of the facts or logic.
If you like, I could explain further of how I concluded god(s) do not exist.
The problem with theistic thinking is that it assumes god as fact. If evidence shows that god may not exist, it causes a logical paradox as two opposing facts can not exist. Because only one thing can be right, theist believe that what shows god may not exist to be a false even though it has evidence and their god does not.

"I don't follow what you are saying when you say, "Morals are also related to the survival of a species." Are you saying us as a whole or us from many different cultures?"

For all cultures, individual and as a whole. The more related to your species one seems to be, the more protective you are of them. If someone is less related to you, the more likely you are to find justification for less than moral or immoral actions. This is not just the case with a close relative but to a lesser point with other people in a culture. We want those like us to survive, we don't want them killed, robbed, or lied to. We also want their species to continue and a cheating spouse can prevent that. Clearly, morals are all related to the survival of the species as we use them to help those like us survive and continue their lineage.

Taking a break. More to come.
MitchV says2015-04-11T14:33:38.713
"The fact is, etc"

What does cutting in line have to do with morals? Is it immoral to cut in line? Sure, it may upset people as it may not be fare to them but immoral? Yes, that was a very bad example.

Hypothetical situation: You are standing next to railway switch and a train is coming fast. You spot your family sitting on one of the rails down the track the switch is set for. On the other track, another track sits another family. There is too much noise around for you to warn either but do you flip the switch and kill the other family to save yours or do you do nothing and let you own family die? Odds are, you would flip the switch even though it would be causing the death of the other family. Basically you would be committing murder. Even though there would be nothing immoral about allowing events to proceed, instead you would become a murderer. Clearly this would be an example of justifiable homicide even though the ones who are killed are innocent victims.

Killing is wrong, but often justified by some measure. As long as it is justified, people feel that it must not be immoral. Thing is, not all people will see any one death as being justified but at least one person would. The killer. Even if for all intense purposes, a murder is considered senseless, the killer always has a motive. This motive is what justifies it to the killer.

"God is the standard to that which is good."

So your saying that slavery, killing people for various reason like worshiping another god, cursing or hitting their parents, being gay and even committing mass genocide. That is the standard to that which is good? If mass genocide is good, what could possibly be evil?
GainWisdom says2015-04-11T20:13:43.380
God's standard is the 10 commandments.

You go tell the family to get off the rail way... That's if you can.

Neglect is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, lying is wrong, adultery is wrong...

How do you know those actions are wrong? Let me bring it to you like this, "If you could be an invisible being for a period of time and you could do anything you wanted without getting caught, would you commit bad crimes? You still would know right from wrong. To know right from wrong you are saying there is a moral law giver. That moral law giver has to be God. That's the only rational conclusion.
GainWisdom says2015-04-11T20:15:03.193
Jesus came to show the way to the father.
MitchV says2015-04-12T00:23:08.387
@GainWisdom:

"God's standard is the 10 commandments."

The ten commandments are just the basic standard, the rest the more detailed parts where he proclaimed exceptions to the rules.

"You go tell the family to get off the rail way... That's if you can."

As I said, it is too noisy so you have no other option but to pull the switch or not. Basically you either allow your own family to die or sentence and innocent family to death to save your own.

"Neglect is wrong, murder is wrong, theft is wrong, lying is wrong, adultery is wrong..."

Because they all go against the survival of a species, not because of some moral law given by a fictional god. How is the belief in some invisible and magical being a rational conclusion when the most logical reason is survival?

"When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions." - Occam's razor
Clearly human survival makes fewer assumption when compared to the idea that a mystical being is the source of morality.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-12T13:16:54.620
"We want those like us to survive, we don't want them killed, robbed, or lied to."

Hmm...And yet most violent crimes in the US today are committed within people of the same race, living in close proximity.
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T13:19:00.293
@MithV:

Since over 90% believe in the existence of God, I would say that it is pretty rational. Are you saying that the people who believe in the existence of God are irrational?

The New Athiests would like us to believe that only religious people have faith. Thus, Christopher Hitchens asserts of the New Athiests, "Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not faith." However, take a few minutes to read the New Athiests and it will be quite obvious that they, including Hitchens, have great doses of faith. Some people even argue that it takes more faith to be an athiest than to believe in God. Consider a few examples of "unseen" things that the New Athiests have faith in.

-They have faith that the universe came into existence from nothing.
-They have faith that life spontaneously arose from matter. (Dawkins says he wouldn't be surprised if chemists announce in a few years that they have solved the problem of the origin of life. Why does he believe this? Faith.)
-They have faith that multiple universes exist to help explain why our universe is so exquisitely fine-tuned for life. (Dawkins admits that there is currently no evidence gor the multimeter theory.)
-They have faith that mind can emerge from matter, or that mind is solely matter.
-They have faith that there is nothing beyond the natural (physical) world.
-They have faith that the world would be improved without religion.

It certainly possible that the New Athiests may turn out to be right. MAYBE.

The belief in God is rational.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-12T13:24:03.143
GainWisdom

Atheists are in denial of the obvious, including that they are also people of faith, since they claim there is no faith without any evidence to dismiss faith.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-12T13:36:40.867
MitchV:

99.9% of the world will never experience your hypothetical cart theory. So your dismissal of an objective code over a scenario that is 0.01% likely to happen to virtually the whole world living according to moral code is rubbish.

Yes people find themselves in dilemmas, but nothing as the above. And the objective moral ans would be which action least violates conscience while resulting in the most good.
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T13:37:32.640
@pastor:

Right on.
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-12T13:45:10.790
GainWisdom:

You really are graceful in your responses. My temper on the other hand doesn't afford me the character.
MitchV says2015-04-12T15:25:47.670
@pastorrexiteke.Com:

Decided to come back I see. Sorry but your idea that science claims the universe started from nothing is still false.

"Hmm...And yet most violent crimes in the US today are committed within people of the same race, living in close proximity."

Hypothetical: A person wants to rob a store, do they fly to another country or down the block? Many crimes due to race are also because of proximity. Many communities tend to consist of specific racial groups so the criminal and victim would likely be of the same race.
On a side note, if two houses of worship where blown up, who would you feel more sympathy for, the people who where in the mosque or those in the church?

@GainWisdom:

"Since over 90% believe in the existence of God, I would say that it is pretty rational."

Nice example of ad populum. The fallacy that state that truth is what is popular. Further, actually less than 90% or about 86% believe in the existence of a god or group of gods. Only about 55% of that believe in the Abrahamic god, a.K.A. God. Prior to the spread of the Abrahamic faiths, many if not most believed in religions with multiple gods. With hundreds of other gods having been believed in, is it rational to think that everyone else around that time was wrong and only those of your faith were right? You see, a theist is almost an atheist. We both deny hundreds of gods exist, you just deny one less.

"The New Athiests would like us to believe blah blah blah etc"

I am not, nor will I ever be a member of any such group. I am a free thinking, independent atheist who needs no shepherd nor flock. I do not believe that gods do not exist, I know they don't.

First off, I have some questions about the statement you claim, i.e. "-They have faith that the universe came into existence from nothing." Are those quotes from their site or did you just assume them?
Secondly, the Big Bang theory does not state the universe came into existence from nothing.
"According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin."
http://www.Ugcs.Caltech.Edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.Htm
Thou it came from something extremely small, something is not nothing. Hope the link works for you, pastorrexiteke.Com: claims it is not working for him. Either way, that is a quote from an edu Cal. Tech. Site.
Lastly, I doubt they used the "faith" in that context. They may have faith in science but that is still different than the type of faith in a deity. Example: You board a plane. Though you have never met him/her, you have faith that the pilot will get you to your destination safely. You believe he is skilled in flying the plane. Does that make the pilot a god that you should worship? Of course not. Same applies to the scientists. They are highly skilled in their field and we should have faith in the answers they find.
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T16:03:06
@MitchV:

Okay, 86% believe that God exists. Are you saying everyone that associates themselves as that 86% are irrational? I wasn't specifically talking about the Abrahamic God... I was just talking about God in general.

When you stated, "You see, a theist is almost an atheist. We both deny hundreds of gods exist, you just deny one less." This is easy to address, the definition of atheism according to the most usual definition is, "a person who maintains that there is NO God. That is the sentence God exists expresses a false proposition." Therefore, in no sense that I am an atheist. Just because I deny the existence of God's from the past, doesn't make me an atheist because to be an atheist you need to believe the proposition that there is NO God. I believe there to be a God. What you need to understand when using such statements is that you have been led astray by a common sort of way internet infidel talking point that is given to atheists to use against theists to make it seem like the atheist claim is less radical that everybody is an atheist about other gods. That's simply not true because to be an atheist you have to believe there is NO God, at all. You have simply asserted that a belief in God is no more rational or irrational than belief in classical theism.
MitchV says2015-04-12T16:11:57.303
@pastorrexiteke.Com:

"Atheists are in denial of the obvious, including that they are also people of faith, since they claim there is no faith without any evidence to dismiss faith."

First off, the lack of evidence is evidence that gods do not exist. If I claimed that I built magical wings that let me fly around the world and could not show you the wings or describe how they worked. Is it possible I actually did fly around the world on magical wings? Of course not. The wings or at least the idea of how I made them would have to exist. Secondly, can you prove that Para Bramh, (Hindu deity) does not exist? No? According to your logic, if you can't prove Para Bramh does not exist, then it and the hundreds of other deities may also exist. Can you dismiss the existence of hundreds of gods without evidence? If so, why can't we?

"hypothetical cart theory"??? Are you talking about the hypothetical train scenario? Yes, it does make it a highly unlikely situation but in reality, people have similar situations in real life. Take a soldier for instance. A battlefield is full of soldiers yet they only shoot at the one who are from the other side. Even though they may be just as innocent as the soldiers on their side, they choose to take the lives of others to save their own kind. This is far from an unlikely scenario as it happens pretty much on a regular basis somewhere in the world.

"You really are graceful in your responses. My temper on the other hand doesn't afford me the character." as said to GainWisdom:

I find it funny that you get angry about this. I just tend to leave emotions out of it as they can an do affect logical thinking. Personally, I pity you. You are still a victim of the brainwashing of indoctrination. You still believe something as absolute fact without a shred of viable evidence to support it, even in theory.

As a side note: Though I believe the theory of the big bang and evolution are probably correct or at least close to being factual. Even if they where proven wrong, it would not mean that a god must exist so would have no effect on me being atheist.
MitchV says2015-04-12T16:38:46.833
@GainWisdom:

"Okay, 86% believe that God exists. Are you saying everyone that associates themselves as that 86% are irrational? I wasn't specifically talking about the Abrahamic God... I was just talking about God in general."

Even stating "86% believe that God exists." is incorrect. Saying "God" (capital G) declares a specific deity of a monotheist belief, i.e. Abrahamic. This is why it is capitalized as a proper noun. Further, many theistic beliefs involve more than one god. Example: the Shinto faith that about 3-4 million people believe in, consists of many gods. To be accurate, you could say "86% believe that a god(s) exist.

"When you stated, "You see, a theist is almost an atheist. Etc"

As you can plainly see, I included the word "almost". This means that you don't quite qualify to be an atheist. Yes, the definition of an atheist could be "a person who maintains that there is no God." But the definition of a theist could be "a person who maintains that there is no God, except their own." Is my dismissal of hundreds of gods really more radical than your dismissal of hundreds of gods -1? Nope, almost exactly the same.
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T16:46:37.683
@MitchV:

There can be no way that I am "almost" an athiest because I believe in God's existence. Just because I don't believe in historical gods other than the Abrahamic God am I by no means "almost" an athiest.
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T16:56:57.797
@MitchV:

Playing the word game is pointless. There is no "almost" about it.

Athiests believe no God(s)
Agnostics are unsure
Theists believe in the existence of God
Polytheists believe in the existence of more than one God
etc
etc
etc...
pastorrexiteke.com says2015-04-12T17:36:29.543
MitchV:

My annoyance is toward obvious stupidity. You said people are moral to those of the same group because they are naturally wired to do so. I responded that in the US, most violent crimes happen btw people of the same race within close proximity. Social stats therefore disproves your point.

Your cart hypothesis is again not application to virtually all of the living world where people have to follow an objective moral code. You came back with soldiers facing a dilemma, which again is not applicable to most of the world. And the dilemma a soldier would face is not the same as your cart theory since a soldier is first a patriot to his or her country and its constitution. It is clearly apples and oranges.

Your one and only Website on the big bang doesn't take away the fact that scientists do not know for certain what the universe came from. So to keep saying you have proof in a Website that won't even show up on my computer is .....
GainWisdom says2015-04-12T17:48:59.657
@MitchV:

Buddy, could you be wrong about atheism? If you say no, my next question would be how do you know? So I could add that you are almost a theist. Just think for a moment... Of all the knowlege that someone coould gain, could God exist in the knowlwge you don't know? I mean let's just say you know five percent of everything. Granted, you would be the smartest person on Earth since the smartest person doesnt even know one percent of the knowlege that is out there in the universe... In the 95% you dont know, can you just admit that a god may exist? "Therefore, making you almost a Theist."
MitchV says2015-04-13T14:46:37.253
@GainWisdom:

"There can be no way that I am "almost" an athiest etc"
"There is no "almost" about it. Etc"

Obviously just denial of a fact you don't want to accept. Do you deny hundreds of gods don't exist despite having no evidence that they do not exist? Guess what, so do atheists.

I find it funny that you claim I am playing word games when theists tend to use words like belief and faith with atheists even though it is far from the same definition.

@pastorrexiteke.Com:

"I responded that in the US, most violent crimes happen btw people of the same race within close proximity. Social stats therefore disproves your point."

And I clearly refuted that. First off, Could you personally stab someone to death if they are miles away? Seeing that most acts of violence have to be within close proximity, this makes that a useless stat that show nothing. Secondly, though people of the same race or other groups do tend to form clusters, these clusters are not always related and ones that are can and do tend to fracture. When similar groups come into contact with each other, this often leads to confrontation. We can see similar traits in wild animals such as a pride of lions. Prides tend to follow herds of game. The herd can draw more than one pride. When the two prides meet, they tend to fight over territory. This is because the two prides do not see view each other as the same. In order for their own kind to survive, they must eliminate competition. As I have shown, race and proximity rarely define a group when it comes to acts of violence so the stats are therefore worthless.
Another way to look at your statistics is the same way we look at auto accident statistics.
Statistics show that almost 80% off all car accidents happen within 10 miles of a persons home.
If we are to confuse the stat like you do. You are less safe when driving in your own neighborhood. Realistically tho, the only reason why such a high percent happens at that distance is because that is about the same percent of time people spend driving within 10 miles of their home. Home is not less safe just more roamed.

"Your cart hypothesis etc"

Still have no idea where you got the whole "cart" thing. Anyway. Of course it does not apply to an objective moral code. That is because morals are subjective. If your a soldier and your buddy is shot, you feel it was evil for that to happen yet when another buddy shoots the enemy, you consider it good. Obviously the enemy would see thing the opposite way so clearly even killing can and often is purely a subjective morality.
Yes, not everyone is a soldier but everyone faces various moral dilemmas in similar ways. Survival of a species is almost always a factor in a moral decision. The closer you identify with someone or some thing, the more likely you are to help them fight for their own survival.

"Your one and only Website etc"

Actually I had many others but you only wanted ones that had .Edu or .Gov. Of those I quickly found two and quoted from both of them. For some reason, you can't or just claim you can't access them but that is probably on your end. You may have a security filter that prevents it or something. The only sites I found that claim the universe came from nothing are theistic ones that have the same issue you do. They are drawing conclusions based on false information.
I have a few options for you.
1) You can defend your belief that science claims the big bang came from nothing with a non-theistic source. (good luck on that one)
2) Simply type into your search window big bang theory science (be sure to include the word science or else you get a bunch of sites about the TV show)
3) Accept that I have prove my point about the big bang originating from a singularity and accept that you used false information.
MitchV says2015-04-13T15:14:10.947
@GainWisdom:

"Buddy, could you be wrong about atheism?"

The only other possibility would be a deist god(s). If you are unfamiliar with them, their is and never would be a religion based on them because they never interacted with their creation so would be unkown to humans. I tend to call them the deadbeat gods as they simply abandoned all duties after they created. Seeing that they could have moved on or disintegrated after the creation, it is plausible that they could have existed. Not that I believe in them so I still am an atheists.

"If you say no, my next question would be how do you know?"

If any named god(s) existed, other things would also have to exist. Seeing that the other things do not exist, neither do any of the named gods.

"So I could add that you are almost a theist. Just think for a moment... Of all the knowlege that someone coould gain, could God exist in the knowlwge you don't know? Etc"

Yes, if I believed in one more god, I would be a theist. Funny thing is. I was a theist. To be more specific, I was a Christian. That means I have about the same knowledge about God as you do, maybe more. As a parallel, when I was very little, I also believed in Santa. I would guess that you did too. Clearly you know just as much if not more about Santa now than you did when you were a kid yet you don't believe in him. Funny thing is, when we are kids, we are shown proof that Santa does exist even after we stop believing in him. We see him in stores and if your like me when I was little, you still received presents from Santa. Even though you had physical evidence (Santa and his gifts) you still stopped believing in him yet continue to believe in a god with no evidence. Odd huh?

"In the 95% you dont know, can you just admit that a god may exist?"

In the 95% you dont know, can you just admit that a god may not exist? As I have said, if a god did exist, certain other things would also have to exist or be true. Because these things do not exist or are not true means that a god does not exist.

Note: If you like. I can elaborate on what would have to exist or be true if a god did exist.
GainWisdom says2015-04-13T15:39:14.413
@MitchV:

It seems like that you aren't understanding the biblical meaning of the word "faith." Personally, I don't like the word faith. It's not that faith isn't important because it is. It's just misunderstood by people. Jesus told the individuals who doubted, "Though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me." (John 10:38) Peter reminds the crowd on Pentecost that Jesus was "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs" (Acts 2:22). Paul writes that the evidences from the natural world for God's eternal power and divine nature "have been clearly seen," so much that those who deny Him "are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality. Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? Absolutely. It works both ways. Here is a suggestion that might help you avoid the confusion. Stop using the word faith. Use the word trust instead, because biblical faith means active trust. And trust must be earned.

Is faith irrational? That depends entirely on what you mean by "faith." If you think faith means staking your eternal destiny on a reckless leap of religious wishful thinking, then yes, that faith is irrational. But that is not biblical faith. Biblical faith is not denying reality, but discovering reality. It's a sense of certainty grounded in the evidence the Christianity is true. God does not want your leap of faith. He wants your step of trust. When you realize you're not wishing on a star about eternal things, that step becomes a lot easier.

I believe that I made my point about the quote you stated earlier well enough. Feel free and re read what I posted if you would like.
GainWisdom says2015-04-13T15:45:32.037
@MitchV:

I stated earlier that atheists maybe right. MAYBE. Feel free and check as to what I am saying is correct.

Feel free to elaborate, I'm listening. You seem like a nice guy. I would love to talk with you in person but since that isn't likely to happen... We can write each other through this website. :)
GainWisdom says2015-04-13T16:08:55.637
@MitchV(continued):

Since I believe the things that Jesus spoke of are true, I believe that what He spoke of on the afterlife are true as well.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that Christianity is true...

For example:
1. Women were thought of at that day of time to be second class citizens. Why would the disciples choose women to see the risen Lord first? It makes no sense, The historian Josephus once said, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” But yet, the disciples picked women out to see Jesus first! In reality they wouldn't have done that. It would've made them look like fools.
2. Everyone of the disciples ended up dying to a belief that they thought to be true. Again, people will not die for a lie.... I mean, they might but only if they thought that lie to be true.
3. Christianity started in Jerusalem. Why on earth would the disciples choose to start a religion based on a man who they claimed had just been raised from the dead. That also makes no sense. People could have easily walked and seen for themselves if Jesus had actually been raised from the dead or see if certain individuals were lying about this awful claim. If in fact Jesus had not been raised from the dead, the disciples would have gotten as far away from Jerusalem as possible before starting a false religion.

Do you get my point?
MitchV says2015-04-13T16:44:16.490
@GainWisdom:

No need to check. I will take your word for it that you said atheists may be right.

To elaborate: Logically, for something to have an effect, it must exist in the same manor as what it effects. Theists tend to claim that the reason we can not detect god's presence is because their god is either not of this plane of reality or that it is not a physical being. The issue is that if the god does not exist in this reality, it can have no effect on this reality. If I lived in a different dimension, I could only change things in my dimensions and would have no effect on this one. If I crossed over to this dimension, I could be detected in this dimension. As far as a god not being a physical being: If I came up with an idea how to make a better mouse trap. That trap may exist in my mind but would have no effect on the physical world. As I said, if a god did exist, we would have evidence. Seeing that we do not, the god must not exist.
There is also the matter of certain things to be true that are not. All gods are known to have specific and/or various abilities, things that they control. Some example such as War god, Sun god, God of death, God of creation. Logically, if a god would make it's power known to man, it would tell all mankind or be responsible for all mankind. Seeing that no one god is known to be responsible for anything means that no god is responsible for anything. To elaborate even more and more specifically; The Christian god is said to have created the originals of mankind, e.g. Adam and Eve, further, he killed off all but those who believed in him e.g. Noah and his family. Clearly that would dictate that at one time, all mankind believed in only one god. The bible describes how the story was passed down from generation to generation. Obviously, if a parent tells one child of the god he believes in, he would tell all his children. We can see examples of this today as I have yet to meet any theist who has failed to tell his children about his belief and they all would try to instill these beliefs in their children. That being the case, if all mankind believed in the one god, that god would exist in all mankind ancient history as it would be passed down. Fact is, various gods where believed in around the world in ancient times with no reference to any one specific god as being real. It was only after people of that religion traveled to other regions that knowledge of that god was known. Seeing that the statement "God was known around the world since the beginning." is not true, the god must also not exist. Seeing that this can be applied to all named gods, it disproves all named gods.

"You seem like a nice guy. I would love to talk with you in person but since that isn't likely to happen... We can write each other through this website. :)"

To be honest, I have a schizoid personality so I tend to detach myself from people. In a way, the friends I do have, I don't really want or need. Most tend to see that as not being a "nice guy" but to me I don't really care one way or the other. To be honest, I have no interest in meeting anyone and would rather not. The only thing I value from other people is intellect as you can learn interesting things from sources you would never expect. To that, I also tend to share what I have learned or discovered. Don't worry, it is not a dangerous condition such as schizophrenia. I don't imagine things that are not there nor harm others. Here is a site that may give some info.
Http://psychcentral.Com/disorders/schizoid-personality-disorder-symptoms/
GainWisdom says2015-04-13T16:55:09.780
@MitchV:

I will respond later. I have to get ready for work.
MitchV says2015-04-13T17:50:57.580
@GainWisdom:

1. Women were thought of at that day of time to be second class citizens.

If we are to use that as evidence then the fact that other religions even have female gods (goddesses) makes them even more probable. After all, if it was untrue, they would look like fools to claim so.

2. Everyone of the disciples ended up dying to a belief that they thought to be true.

If we are to use that as evidence then seeing that people in the other scriptures died believing in their god, then their god has the same evidence. Thing is, we don't know if the people who wrote the bible actually believed what they were saying. Seeing that they gained income over what they claimed gives them motive to lie or elaborate on the truth. Further, many may have just been victims of illusions. It is well known that many medical practices existed even back in those days. Thing is, not everyone knew about the science so may have contributed the results as miracles. Seeing that most of his disciples where fishermen, odds are they would know little about science so any acts of science could and probably would be seen as miracles.

3. Christianity started in Jerusalem.

Yet an odd thing is, according to the accounts, when they first saw Jesus after the resurrection, they did not recognize him. What is more probable, that someone rose from the dead or that someone just claimed to be Jesus. If you are a uneducated fisherman who believes that their leader performed miracles, believing that he rose from the dead may be believable.
If you did not know that a magician only perform tricks you might believe what you see is real. If the magician shows you minor things that you don't understand, you may believe he has some actual magical power. Once your convinced of how much power he may have, you are likely to believe his finally is real no matter how unbelievable it is.

In the end, the bible is just an old book. If the only evidence you have is from pages of that book then that would mean Harry Potter is evidence that Wizards exist. Yes, the bible is a compilation of many books from various authors. Many books by various authors write about elves, dragons, zombies, etc. Does that validate their existence?
Another interesting thing is that the story of the Great Flood is not unique to Abrahamic religion. The epic of Gilgamesh is dated to 2000 - 1500 BC. That is before the book of Genesis was written 1440 -1400 BC. It too depicts a man who saved the creatures of the world and his family by boarding a boat during a global flood. Sorry, the story claims the man's name was Utnapishtim, not Noah and the god's name was Enki and was one of many gods in that religion. Funny thing is, science has proven that no such flood ever occurred. I would guess the story started out as a tale of a man who saved a few livestock from a local flood and the story was just elaborated on from there. It is also likely that the story caught the ear of Jewish scholars at the time and they used it but put their own spin on it to include their god. It might be a good example of one of the first urban legends.
GainWisdom says2015-04-13T18:28:10.443
@MitchV:
To be honest a lot of that stuff that you were stating about dimensions made my head hurt. I'm going to try to stay a bit more on topic where you can understand myself about the God issue.

How do we know there is a God?
There are basically three steps in which someone concludes of God's existence.

Step 1: However you section physical reality, you take the physical universe as you see it... However you slice it down to its tiniest form the fact of the matter is you end up with a physical entity or quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself. Ultimately, the physical universe reduced in any form cannot explain its own origin. It has to find its explanation outside of itself. Which means the first explanation of a universe as we see it has to have something non physical as a first cause. So you kind of have a haunted universe without knowing what the first cause is.

Step 2: You have the argument not from design but to design. If you walk on a planet and see a wrapper of a McDonald's hamburger and see letters of an alphabet you immediately know that there is information there. Logic tells you, as it tells everyone; where you see information you assume that prior to that information is a mind. You don't just think that something automatically came together, or that the dictionary developed because of an explosion and a printing press.

There is a sequence to the hole thing. If you take just the composition of the enzyme in the human component... The enzyme which is the building block of the gene and the gene the building block of the cell, the possibility of the enzyme coming together by random, the possibility of it happening by chance is 1 in 10 to the 40,000. That's more than the number of atoms in the universe.
A.) The physical quantity cannot explain itself.
B.) There is intelligent ability assuming there is a prior mind.

In the first case there is something non physical. In the second case, there is something intellectual or a mind. And third, in the history of society, human experience and history itself you begin to realize that the moral issues, the social issues, and just human intercourse demands the explanation of a moral reality. So you got a first cause that is spiritual, a first cause that is mind, a first cause that needs to explain morality... You take these three struggles and you will realize that there are four fundamental questions in life. They are questions that deal with:
1. Origin
2. Meaning
3. Morality
4. Destiny
You take these four questions and the three explanations I pointed out earlier and only God is big enough to explain this universe.


I'm tired. Going to take a break. My head hurts.
MitchV says2015-04-14T04:34:49.670
@GainWisdom:

"Step 1: etc"

This alone has many issues and flawed ideas.
Something broken down to its basic form, i.e. atoms, has no capability for reason or any thought process so ideas like "reason for its existence", "explain its own origin", and " It has to find its explanation" are illogical. The statement "Which means the first explanation of a universe as we see it has to have something non physical as a first cause." Is false as all physical things have physical properties such as would be found on a periodic table. These physical properties interact with the properties of other atoms to become molecules, and so on. They need no purpose, given or their own. One example I tend to give is that of a snowflake. Something that with such a complex structure may look like it was designed by an artist yet the only thing that creates them are the physical laws of science and nature. They are just an unintentional result as any naturally forming thing is.

"Step 2: etc"

In nature, things like a McDonald's wrapper do no exist but once in a while, natural forces cause something that looks like a letter from the alphabet to occur such as a split in a tree could appear as the letter Y. Obviously these are not intended for alphabetic reasons so pretty much meaningless to assume a thought process. The idea that information automatically implies a thought process behind the source is false. Example: If I spot a tree stump and want to know how old it was, I can count the rights. The rings do not form out of a thought process of the tree but because nutrients vary with the seasons. The things we learn from nature are about the natural processes that occur without any forethought involved by anyone or anything.

"There is a sequence to the hole thing. Etc"

Sorry, it has been a long time since science class but I think your making a flawed assumption. The claim of the odds is as if you took a random size peg and attempted to put it in a random sized hole. Thing is, that is not how it works. It is more like taking small dabs of putty to fill the random sized holes. Eventually all the holes will be filled so there is no need for an exactly fitting peg as the hole forms it. Sure, in this case, the holes don't just accept any kind of putty but the physical characteristics/properties of the material either repel or attract the correct type(s). Your statistics sound as if they have been creatively manipulated to show something that is false. Like I said, it has been a long time since science class so my response may be a bit off. Please show a non-theistic source for the statistics you claim as I suspect they are likely formed from what theists want them to claim. If you can not show such a source I would say that this too has been refuted.

The thing about morality is that it comes from the survival of a species. Think about it, every moral action links to survival and continuation of the species.
Killing is wrong because it defeats survival.
Stealing is wrong because the victim may loose something needed to survive.
Lying is wrong because the victim may not find the information to survive.
Cheating (sex) is wrong because it denies the victim the opportunity to procreate.
If we look at what is called the 7 deadly sins, we get things that are needed for the survival and continuation of a species but to excess. All of which could take away things others need to survive or procreate. Example: We all need to eat to survive, but eating too much (gluttony) may prevent others within the species enough to survive.
Clearly what is considered moral is only based on natural needs and not some higher ideal of right and wrong.

1. Origin
The beginning of a chain of events that began without a plan.
2. Meaning
A characteristic people give things that have no meaning.
3. Morality
A natural result of survival
4. Destiny
The inevitable end to a chain of events that began without a plan.

If you like I can further explain the above but clearly none require the existence of any deity much less a more specific god (God).
GainWisdom says2015-04-14T15:17:55.143
MitchV:

There are three great arguments for the existence of God.
1.Begining: Cosmological Argument(Scientifically backed up)
2.Design: Teleological Argument(Scientifically backed up)
3.Morality: Moral Argument(Philosophically backed up) My personal favorite.
Feel free to investigate them for yourself if you would like. I don't find that atheism comes close to explaining certain topics about the universe and life's important questions. Atheism doesn't have any arguments to supports the claim that there is no God. It is as simple as that. E must remember that Jesus said, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life."

Blaise Pascal said, "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
It has been a pleasure to chat with you and I hope you have a different perspective about the existence of God."



Peace.
MitchV says2015-04-14T17:16:01.603
@GainWisdom:

"1.Begining: Cosmological Argument(Scientifically backed up)"

I believe that this is usually refereed as the first cause of, for instance, the big bang. There is nothing that shows that the cause had to be from an intellectual being so could have been any naturally occurring force that existed at the time. One such example would include the big crunch along with the big bang. The big crunch would be seen as a reversal of the big bang once the universe reaches it's limit. Basically it returns to being a singularity. This action could cause another big bang so it is plausible that a prior big crunch was the first cause of our big bang. Even though the big bang would have needed a cause, there is no reason to believe that cause was a being (god). Just wondering, what are you claiming by "Scientifically backed up" because to the best of my knowledge, science has never proven that the cause had to be a deity.

"2.Design: Teleological Argument(Scientifically backed up)"

If we look at naturally forming objects, many things may look as if designed but actually are just formed out of natural processes. On a small scale you could look at a snowflake as an example but on a much larger scale, when a liquid is suspended, the reaction is the surface area is reduced to the smallest areas (sphere). As this sphere cools it retains the spherical form. If gravitational forces are applied to the sphere, it will be less than perfectly spherical. Gravitational forces and forward momentum are what cause objects in space to orbit one another. As more of these forces take hold, more order is resulted. Again, natural forces are why things look designed yet are not. I highly doubt any reputable scientist would support the claim that these things needed a deity to design them.

"3.Morality: Moral Argument(Philosophically backed up)"

I have already shown how morals are just a result of the survival of a species so not from higher sense of good and evil. Basically I have already refuted it.

I have no need to investigate any of those as I had already been posed those silly arguments many times. They are all pretty much based on the conclusion "I don't know, therefore god." that is an argument in favor of ignorance. Contrary to what you claim, I, and other atheists have shown arguments to supports the claim that there is no God. I have even shown you have the lack of evidence to support a god is actually evidence, if not proof, that god(s) do not exist.
Remember that John Lennon said "Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today..."

"Blaise Pascal said, "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

Yes, it is a much happier idea that we would continue after death. This tends to be a theme in just about every single faith. It is also a much happier idea that we can win the lottery. This tend to be a theme in just about every single lottery player. Just because something sound better does not make it more factual but actually less probable. Yes the world would be a much better place, at least for a day, if a mystical man handed out gifts once a year. Yet Santa does not exist.
GainWisdom says2015-04-15T01:56:36.137
@MitchV:

What is your argument for proving that God doesn't exist?

Are you willing to admit that a God may exist?
MitchV says2015-04-15T14:48:14.767
@GainWisdom:

"What is your argument for proving that God doesn't exist?"

My logical argument:
I have an idea of how you may understand this. Prometheus (one of the gods of Greek mythology) was associated with giving man fire. Clearly other people around the world had knowledge of how to make an use fire without Prometheus's assistance so I think you would even say that this is proof that Prometheus did not exist, because if he did exist and was the god of fire, only he could have given people the power over fire. Agree?
Assuming you agree, you may be wondering how that has anything to do with your god existing or not. Thing is, every god has certain things related to them. Fire god, war god, water god, god of death, and of course god of creation. Seeing that people all around the world have had these aspects in common despite not worshiping that specific god proves that those gods do not exist either.
The Abrahamic god (a.K.A. The Christian god) is especially vulnerable to this. According to the same writings that claim the god exists, at certain times, all humans on earth believed in he/she/it. The first time was when he created Adam and Eve. Clearly they would believe in the god, then later, the god killed all mankind except those aboard Noah's ark. Clearly all of them would believe in the god. If either of those where true, like I said, all mankind would have believed in the one god. That being the case, we would all be descended from people that all believed in the one god and no other. The stories about those events have been passed down and are why they still exist in the bible with so much detail. Funny thing is, besides where the area of the religions origins (around the Mesopotamia area), people never heard of that god. Seeing that the religion had such a detailed account in one branch of descendants, you would think that some of the others branches would have at least a mention of it in their ancient past yet no. Clearly a parents who fully believed in the god would pass down the belief and instill the belief in their children, yet not a peep comes from any other place in the whole world about the god. Clearly, seeing that nobody outside that area associates their existence to the god is proof that the god is not the source of creation.

My physical argument:
Here is where the lack of physical evidence is evidence, if not proof, that god(s) do not exist.
Theists, especially Christians, claim that their god is not a physical being so can not be detected. This is why they claim that the lack of evidence is not proof that their god exists. All gods are known to interact with the physical world. Thing is, to interact with the physical world, you need a physical form. Some things do exist without having a physical form. Example: I could design and create a mouse trap in my head. In this case, the mouse trap exists without a physical form. I could even imagine the mouse trap catching a mouse, so it and a mouse could exist without form. Problem is, the mouse trap in my mind can not trap a mouse in the physical world until it takes physical form. Once the mousetrap takes physical form, not only can it interact with the physical world but the physical world can see it. We would have evidence if not proof that the trap exists. These same fact would also apply to a god. If it does exist in the physical world, we would have physical evidence to the gods existence. Seeing that there is no, and never was, any evidence that the god existed, this is evidence if not proof the god does not exist.

"Are you willing to admit that a God may exist?"

If a god did exist, it would have to be the deist god(s). This would be an unknown god created then abandoned his creation without any contact. I sometimes call it the deadbeat god because it abandoned it's creation without further contact or support.
Seeing that this god(s) was never heard of and never named, no religion would claim the god to have done anything and may have just made up a name and ability to what they feel the god(s) may have done. This is why the logical argument does not refute it's existence.
Seeing that the god just moved on and may be at some far point of the universe, it could be far to distant to be detected. This is why the physical argument does not refute it's existence.
Though my arguments do no refute an unknown god, I do not believe it/they exist as it can be dismissed.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchen's Razor

Though I gave my own reasons why god(s) can't exist. You had earlier stated. "Atheism doesn't have any arguments to supports the claim that there is no God. It is as simple as that." There was a pole a while back on this site titled "What is the "best" argument against the existence of God out of the listed (read description)?" On that page they list 25 arguments against the existence of god(s).
Http://www.Debate.Org/polls/what-is-the-best-argument-against-the-existence-of-god-out-of-the-listed-read-description
GainWisdom says2015-04-16T03:03:32.553
I believe what you are trying to say is that the more we learn about the universe, the things we learn about God gets smaller and smaller, up to the point of God's inextence, I believe the more we learn about the universe, the more we will learn about God.

There are four questions that need to be answered for Christianity to be true and I believe you can answer them. I will give you three questions since you already dismiss the possibility of God existing:

1. Does truth exist?
2. Are miracles possible?
3. Is the NT trustworthy?

The answer to all those questions are yes!
MitchV says2015-04-16T15:30:35.953
@GainWisdom:

"I believe what you are trying to say etc"

Actually, my logical argument had basically nothing to do with knowledge of the universe but more with the fact that there have been hundreds of gods worshiped around the world. Had any of those gods been real, all mankind would associate that god alone with what they are said to control or create. Seeing that no god was associated with things beyond the initial worshipers proves that none of those gods existed.
Though some basic knowledge comes into play with the physical argument, it does not make what you learn about the god smaller but shows that the god does not exist either.
Theists do not take a scientific approach to the issue of their deity. The scientific approach looks at the evidence and leads the scientist to the conclusion. Theist start with a conclusion "God exists" and attempt to guide the evidence toward that conclusion.

"There are four questions etc"

Q.1. Does truth exist?
Facts exist but are not always equal to a truth. For instance, if a person has a hallucination and claims that they saw a dog fly, they believe they saw a dog fly so they would be telling the truth, yet dog can fly is not a fact. To answer that question, many honestly claim truth but it does not equal fact till proven as such.
Q.2. Are miracles possible?
This depends on your definition of a miracle. A long time ago, I heard a story about a man asking what the difference between luck and a miracle is. He was told "If you just buttered a slice of bread and accidentally drop it and it lands butter side up, that's luck, but if it lands on the edge, that's a miracle." This is not how I would define it though. It would be a miracle if you accidentally dropped it and it floated in mid-air. Landing butter side up is basic chance, landing on the edge is improbable, seeing that it floating mid-air defies natural law, that would define a miracle. Many people claim that when a person lives despite what physicians predict, that it is a miracle. Nope, just highly unlikely. To answer that question, based on my definition, miracles are not possible.
Q.3. Is the NT trustworthy?
It is a work of fiction with a few small facts thrown in to make it more believable. Some of the biggest problems the NT and OT have are how they claim things to be facts that have been proven false. Christians need to believe every word of the NT or else they fail their god. To answer that question, I would not trust it in the least.

As a note: Speaking of the OT and the NT. Ever notice the difference in the ways of the god? The OT god was all about wrath and punishment, where the NT god was about kindness and forgiving. Even before the death of Jesus. Hypothetically, if the bible was true, and Satan was once an angel who sat at the right hand of god. Angels too are said to have god-like powers. Satan is also claimed to be a trickster. That being said, it is possible that Satan pretended to be the son of god. That it was he who was named Jesus. Obviously it would be a good way to gain an army of followers to oppose god, and it would explain the dramatic difference. Just saying.
GainWisdom says2015-04-16T15:53:41.403
@MitchV:

1. Truth exists. 1+1=2. It will always equal two. If I told you that if someone sang "Party in the USA" by Miley Cyrus ten times before they died, they would spend all eternity in Nashville, TN eating chocolate ice cream with a Billy Ray Cyrus mullet from the 80's... That is a lie. It won't happen.

I will not respond to question two since the majority of people who believe in miracles also believe in God.

3. For Christianity to be true, I don't have to answer anything about the OT... Since Jesus verified the OT all you have to do is find an error in the NT.

Where do you find the NT to be fictional?
MitchV says2015-04-17T01:35:54.387
@GainWisdom:

1. 1+1=2 is a fact, not a truth. It is a fact because it has or can be proven as such. Furthermore, how is your scenario any less probable than the belief that if you say other words (pray) you can spend eternity in mystical land (heaven) with a mystical being (god).
2. Give me an example of a documented miracle. Something that would defy the laws of nature. By the way, the bible does not qualify as a document.
3. Actually, the fact that the NT verifies the OT means that any error that is verified from the OT is an error in the NT. Further, even according to the NT, the earth is flat.
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, etc
Clearly if the above is true, the planet must be a flat surface. Are these statements true and live on a flat planet? Or are they errors and live on a spherical planet?
GainWisdom says2015-04-17T02:49:26.163
@MitchV:

1. Facts and truths are the same thing. Haha
2. Why doesn't the Bible qualify as being a document?
MitchV says2015-04-17T14:45:00.723
@GainWisdom:

"1. Facts and truths are the same thing. Haha"

A little girl watches a magic show. She comes home and says that she seen a woman being sawn in half. She did not lie as that is what she believes she had seen. That means she was speaking the truth. Does that mean she is stating a fact? Nope. Truth is how we actually view something, a fact is how things actually are. Many times they are the same thing but one does not always equal the other. As you can see, facts and truths are not the same thing, though they can be.

"2. Why doesn't the Bible qualify as being a document?"

For many reasons.
1) There is no way to verify any of the spectacular things even happened.
2) The bible has proven to be false on many aspects to far from a reliable source.
The bible also has many stories that are just parables so not about actual events. Many people claim some parts as actual events yet others claim the same parts as parables. That being said, there is now way to claim what miracles actually are to be believed vs. What are just meant as a lesson.
3) If we can accept the bible as a document, scriptures from other religions must be considered just as valid. Seeing that they refute each other as to the true god, they disqualify each other as a factual document.
4) The bible is just a book like any other. Much like any other books with supernatural events, it fits with works of fiction or mythology.
5) It involves circular reasoning, e.g. God exist because the bible says so. The bible is fact because it is God's word. The first validates the second and the second validates the first. Till it can be established that the god exists, any claims made by him can not be taken as fact. Thus disqualifies the bible.
I am sure I could think of a few more but why?
GainWisdom says2015-04-17T17:24:18.887
1. It is a fact that the girl wasn't cut in half. That is true. Just because someone perceives something to be true doesn't make it true.

2. The historian Josephus verified that a historical Jesus existed and that people looked upon him as God who performed miracles.
MitchV says2015-04-18T01:36:38.153
@GainWisdom:

"1. It is a fact that the girl wasn't cut in half. That is true. Just because someone perceives something to be true doesn't make it true."

Like I said, even if a person is speaking the truth, they may not be telling the real facts.

"2. The historian Josephus verified that a historical Jesus existed and that people looked upon him as God who performed miracles."

Actually, he did verify that a man named Jesus did exist and that he had disciples. He also verified that others claimed he rose from the dead. Later versions of his manuscript had been altered in more favor to the Christian faith. This is likely as they are the ones who held his original documents and were the ones to make the later versions.
Https://carm.Org/regarding-quotes-historian-josephus-about-jesus
That source is bias on the side of Christianity and it even states that Christians altered the documentation. The so called miracle of him rising from the dead are simply taken from the same people who wrote books of the bible. Much like the girl at the magic show, they believe what they have seen even thought if is not factual. It is also likely that they made up the whole rising from the dead bit to make their faith sound more spectacular. In that case, they were not like the little girl. They lied and only claimed it to be true. Surely they had motive to lie and that being the case, any reports of their tales would be just as false whether it be in their books or from others who heard about the tale second hand. Even in what is believed to be his original manuscripts, he does not claim that Jesus did rise from the dead, just that he was told Jesus did by the prophets.

It is a common philosophy that history is written by the victors. This is not exactly true because even those on the loosing side tend to have their own exaggerated version of events. Clearly, the so called prophets would recount the events in their favor. Again, this shows that what you believe is truth is not fact.
GainWisdom says2015-04-18T21:28:59.377
What is not true about the NT?
MitchV says2015-04-19T00:50:57.530
@GainWisdom:

"What is not true about the NT?"

I have already answered this.

Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, etc

All these things claim that the earth is flat, that if you get high enough, you can see all kingdoms of the world and that the earth has corners like a square. All these are in the NT, are they true? Is the earth flat? Or has it been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the earth is spherical and that those statement can not be true in the NT?
GainWisdom says2015-04-19T01:07:02.900
The Bible doesn't claim that the Earth is flat. You have to understand context of what is being said. The Bible has many types of literature found in it. If you don't understand the particular context behind the literature the Bible will be really confusing. But no, the Bible never claimed the Earth to be flat.
MitchV says2015-04-19T01:31:12.503
@GainWisdom:

In what other context could one see all kingdoms of the world from atop a mountain or corners of the earth for angels to stand?

Fact is, Christians have made such claims. There is even a group today called The Flat Earth Society. (1) As recent as 1893, a Professor Orlando Ferguson of South Dakota created a map that depicts the earth as being flat. (2)
Sources:
1) http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission
2) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg
Clearly these people believe the bible claims the earth is flat and even that the sun revolves around the earth. Both have been proven to be false.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.