Laws of the universe don't apply before the universe existed. Plus, there was no universe before, therefore it was an open system.
And I suppose you do? Universe - the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. Genesis 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth" First of all, you can't take man's quotations and use it as an analogy of God, especially against him. It just doesn't work that way. Math disproves God? Oh please show me, because numbers can most definitely disprove a divine entity which we know almost nothing about. Your argument is built on bias and ignorance - the worst two components for a debate. The church did not invent "tithe" - Malachi 3:10. 'Bring all the tithes into the storehouse'. If no one has any knowledge of something, there's no way we can disprove or prove it. It is clear that you know next to nothing about religion, specifically Christianity. There is no hard, concrete evidence supporting God's nonexistence, and neither is there hard evidence he does. But I can say for certain there's more evidence than there's not. Churches weren't meant to prove God. Churches aren't laboratories where you study if God exists. Science and church are two completely different things. Nobody will bother with you when they realize how arrogant you are when you say this.
Is there an immediate influence on the site as a result? Would you rather the site updates end in amen and the mods ranks all be ranks of the clergy? Seriously I don't see it show much outside of a few arguments in a few threads in a few forums that have absolutely nothing to do with what this site is made for, halo maps. A statement such as this only works to discredit the arguments made by your peers. (I mean for Christianity not against it) By reinforcing the stereotype held by some atheists that Christians are intolerant homophobic jerks that only accept their opinion to be right. (Notice I said some) And in reinforcing that stereotype you make it even harder for those on your side to refute such a stereotype from forming in the first place. In short, if our atheism discomforts you then by all means leave but don't announce it to the world as if doing so will get you any sympathy. (Note that the preceding statement was directed ONLY at him. It in no way was supposed to hold any message for anybody outside of the recipient *rated dirty*)
I'd just like to point out that you can't call a Christian an intolerant homophobic jerk. If they're an intolerant homophobic jerk, they obviously aren't a Christian, which gives you the right to call them whatever they make themselves out to be.
A thing cannot assert its own perfection - perfection must always be awarded from a higher form of arbitration, and supposedly there is no higher thing than God. The argument that god is the highest being in existence does not make him perfect (it may be more perfect to not exist). If I were to slaughter every human on the planet, I would not be the perfect human. Even though I am the highest human, I am not perfect (in fact I'm a murderer!). If you agree and say that because I am a murderer I can not be perfect then I submit to you that god is responsible for the worst atrocities in the bible and that he is guilty of negligent homicide by allowing Eve to be tempted. If you disagree and claim he (the human) is perfect then I no longer wish to debate this topic. Perfection only begets perfection - any imperfection is the result from the alleged perfection, making the alleged perfection imperfect. The universe contains imperfections (if perfection is objective), therefore god is imperfect.
No one knows if the universe always existed. The point is, you've been saying it definitely hasn't always existed. Hmm, "the heavens and the earth". Why the earth? Why not say "the cosmos" or "the planets"? Do I sense a sort of geocentric-type thinking going on here? ... When I said "You don't know..." I meant to stress the word "know". You can hypothesize that there was no universe until God made it, but you don't know. Knowledge and beliefs are not one and the same.
Two things. God is not responsible for anything in the Bible. Nobody had to do what he asked, or even listen to him. God allowed Eve to be tempted? Come on. He specifically said to not eat from that tree. Because Eve disobeyed him God is held responsible? I cannot be held responsible for a crime my brother commits. If God exists outside of the universe, how can this statement properly be applied?
Things he directly commands or wills. For instance when he sent two bears to maul 42 children in 2 Kings. God did allow Eve to be tempted, read my post on creation a few pages back. God is responsible for the fall, not Eve. It isn't a statement "god is inside the universe therefore imperfect". He is the creator of an imperfection. A perfect artist cannot paint an imperfect painting.
Heavens = cosmos. Notice how heavens is plural. Earth = planets (atleast it suggests so) Again, Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning" Implying there was nothing before it. It does not imply, however, that it is just the beginning of a new system. Since an already created system is closed, laws would apply, and a new system could not have been created. (According to science, for y'alls) I will read your post your previous post later. Who says God's creation wasn't perfect? It was, until it turned bad. The whole topic of God's perfection is almost too stupid to argue over, and is as always, subject to one's opinion. While you may believe he's not perfect, I do. There really is no need to constantly regurgitate our opinions, arguing opinions go nowhere.
Well, I thought Heavens was heaven, but never mind. God to you is perfect, so shouldn't you interpret his word literally? Earth = Earth. If by saying the "heavens", it meant all the planets and celestial bodies, then why mention Earth afterwards? Anyway. Good night.
How could it turn bad if it was perfect? The serpent would reflect an imperfection... It's not a matter of belief. Look at the outline: Premise: God is perfect. Premise2: Being perfect, god cannot create/cause/deliever an imperfection. God creates imperfection. Therefore, god is not perfect. Premise: God is perfect. Premise2: God is the highest being. A thing cannot assert its own perfection - perfection must always be awarded from a higher form of arbitration, and supposedly there is no higher thing than god, therefore, god is not perfect.
Earth is the desired place for us to live. We've never seen anything perfect - therefore we can firmly say that we don't know too much about perfection. Like your example earlier "the perfect bed" is subject to an opinion. Is God really perfect? We've never seen God, or observed him, so how can we begin to describe him? Where in any bible does it state he is perfect? You can't say perfection must be awarded - nothing you know is perfect, therefore we can say that obtainment of perfection is arbitrary or subject to one's beliefs.
You have a problem with double posts lol. 1). The perfect bed was your example, not mine. 2). I don't advocate perfection, you do and as such you must make the assumption that perfection exists, otherwise we are not arguing about anything. 3). Assuming you believe god is perfect, you cannot provide a positive ontology (as you stated) therefore the idea that god is perfect is flawed by your lack of knowledge. 4). Perfection is not an objective term in my book. It is a word in the English language. If I do not emit the quality of perfection this does not mean that I am incapable of understanding perfection as it is a construct of the human mind and my mind. 5). Believers are agnostic.
Yeah, I click post, then I remember to edit the old one. 1) Actually is was diablo's. My mistake. 2) /dur 3) No one can give an exact definition of God. It is subject to interpretation, like everything. God, in my mind, can remain best known as the indescribable. 4) If perfection is a construct of the human mind, why is it that none can achieve it? We can't define perfection, perfection is a term used to define things that seem all too good and fitting, but that is clearly not perfect, then I can say its arbitrary. We don't know exactly what perfection is, so if we stood in the face of it we probably wouldn't know, considering nothing in this universe is perfect. 5) There are some things we know and some things we don't. Like evolution.
4). Perfection - conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type. I just did. It can take on more meanings depending on what context you use it in but there it is. Like I said, objective perfection doesn't exist so to say we don't know doesn't make sense. We all know what perfection is because it is subjective. Looking at the definition we see the ambiguity of the "ideal" type. I believe everything currently in existence is the "ideal" type and therefore perfect. 5). What makes you think we know anything?
4) I hope i'm not making a mistake by saying this but did I not already state that perfection was arbitrary/subjective? 5) Its blatantly obvious. I know that i'm typing, and I know that I'm looking at my nice 22" computer screen