I realize that, but the point is, I already addressed it. I'm tired of arguing repeated statements, which were literally just used. Examples: That's one... (ironic?) And again.. a scientific method argument... I can't find the other half of the argument, but its there.
concession Just because you previously avoided the issue several times does not mean you've addressed it at all. No one is saying that there is not evidence of god's existence somewhere out there in the cosmos, or even evidence that is right in front of us that we have yet to discover. What we are saying is that as of right now, this moment in human history, we have found absolutely no evidence that god exists. For you to believe that god does exist you must concede that you believe in god, not because of any evidence that shows god is real, but because of your deep desire for it to be true. No evidence has been found..........you still believe..........your belief does not come from evidence.............your belief comes from wanting god to be real.
Assuming you've looked, which you probably haven't. I'm also positive many people before have said "there's no evidence for God's existence." My belief does come from evidence. I have personal evidence, but its quite obvious that you wouldn't believe something like that. It'd just be, as Richard Dawkins coins it - a hallucination.
? Assuming I've looked at what? I'm sure that many, many people have said that "there's no evidence for God's existence". My goal is not to be the first to say it. I was just trying to get you to take a look at the reality of the situation. I'm not saying you're hallucinating. I am saying there is no evidence for the existence of god, you just agreed and said you don't need it because you have personal evidence. What is your personal evidence?
I like how you are trying to change the subject. It always seems to happen at the exact same point too. Usually when you realize there is no evidence for your debate and all you have to rely upon is your faith. I have no problem with your beliefs so long as you aren't bastardizing the scientific method or forcing your beliefs upon others.
That lack of evidence overwhelms unbiased onlookers to reach the conclusion that there is no god. Don't argue semantics. Here Here In accordance with the method's of science.
The above is true, if you assume you could comprehend an omniscient being. How do you know whether or not one can be omniscient and create something with free will? Because God is the ultimate superior being, who are we to say we can understand how things work and makes laws based on what we seem to have proven. Science in fact point towards a god in that humans are flawed and that our knowledge of anything and everything with never be completed in this universe, which makes the universe in itself impossible without an omniscient Creator.
How does our imperfection point to God being omniscient? If he is above our level of understanding, how can we know any of his traits?
Since I didnt want to read 200+ pages just to post, this probably has been said, but think about this: If god is all powerfull, why is there sin? If god is all-loving, why has he condemned most of the world to hell?
Shot in the Dark That's the point. At our current stage of development we can not comprehend an omniscient being. Only within the past couple hundred years have we even begun to scratch the surface of understanding the universe. Physics and Math are relatively recent developments in human history and even more recent are the tools that technological advancement has brought to properly observe and study the universe. We are not even close though, to comprehending an omniscient creator or any of his traits. So why do hundreds of religions do it anyway, all claiming that their religion is the one that has it all figured out. The rational direction for humans to take is to accept what we know to be true and also what we discover while not obsessing about what we do not, or can not know. Anything else is a shot in the dark that has been practiced in various forms throughout our history.
God is all powerful, but being powerful doesn't mean you have to control everything. Sin is basically disobedience towards god. God choose for us to have free will. we can either embrace his love or rebel against him. God is all-loving, but that doesn't mean he won't punish us. We are all sinners no doubt. It's impossible for us not to be condemned by God for we are sinners. However, if we believe in god and that Jesus died for our sins so we could be forgiven, then those who ask for forgiveness will not burn in hell. and where have you heard this about him condemning most of the world to hell? this is news to me. Personally, you either believe there's a Powerful God who created everything in his image, Or everything came to be in a big explosion from nothing. Both have never been proven right or wrong, but I like the idea of a positive outlook on life that says if you're a good person, you'll live in an eternity of happiness in an afterlife. That's just me.
Yes, this argument was said 120+ pages ago I think. If you say that we are all sinners and we have to embrace god as our savior, what about those who lived thousands of years ago and had no religion? Did they go to hell for not knowing a god existed? Why did god give us our 10 commandments only a couple thousand years ago? Why not give them to us at the birth of our race?
Those who have lived and not heard the word of god are accepted into heaven. Pretty simple. like all those outlander tribes in deserted parts of the world... The commandments were originally to help freed slaves from egypt to live better lives. it is now a stereotypical rulebook perse for christians and other faiths who believe in god, but most of these things are pretty basic. they we're intended from the very beggining, just only now its official. And there's also the chance that I'm wrong or there's no answer right now. No one can understand everything in the bible or understand why things are the way they are.
Then why did you tell me? Is it true that had I not heard the word of god that I would enter heaven? If yes, what is noble in proselytizing? If no, what kind of god condemns the ignorant due to a blissful unawareness?
Odd Debate, but some people, believe in the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) Me, not included. God is real, end of story. Who made earth? On coincedence two asteroids collided simultaniously, or someone did that, with the force? Did a meatball go flying from MR Monster? Or, did god create the earth, the living things - Thats where god comes in. Obviously , there is a god, because who made us? The Monkeys? Who made the monkeys? The fish? Who made the fish? Parasites? Who made the Parasites? And Asteroid? who made the Asteroid? a Planet? Who made the Planets? God.
That's not the end of the story. We don't know any of this. People don't really believe in FSM, it's a joke to poke fun at religion. It's not obvious that a god exists. Monkeys did not make us. We evolved from common ancestors of monkeys. Parasites evolved from single cells, which developed over time. You're talking about who made what, but you never answer "Who made God?" You act as if single cells occurring is ludicrous, but how is it any more impossible than an omnipotent being appearing from nothing? You can't just say "God did it."