I wish I was here when this thread started. I have a lot of reading to do tomorrow...
But from the first couple of posts, I can tell that the OP is my kind of guy.
Well in his case, god is the creator.
*sigh* There isn't a point in going before the beginning is there? No. The reason for this is that the further you look back, the more time you lose to go forward.
It really is pointless to go timeline with religion though. For most religions god is "timeless", so when you pull the "before god" bullshit, they just say that god is the starting point.
-Really quite pointless in its entirety.
-And also you might add that even if God did "grow" to power, if he at all possessed the ability of time, "omnipresent" is undeniable.
Example: God grows to power, gains control of time, goes back in time. Therefore all the time he was not "omnipresent", really doesn't exist.
:/ you have too little imagination.
Arguing that the Universe needed a beginning comes from a skewed perspective we have as human beings. Time and space are a result of the Big Bang, referring to time prior to the big bang is completely incoherent. And asserting some deity must of created the universe before the universe existed is doubly so incoherent. You claim that everything needs a beginning and then go to assert that to avoid infinite regress God must have always existed. If we were to take two positions either that Universe always existed in one form or another, or that God always existed before the universe but started that universe. Occam's razor would suggest that the first is far more likely.
"We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot
No offense Shane, but that sounded homo.
Big Bang is still a theory, and cannot be proved with hard evidence, likewise with a theists standpoint.
You believe yours to be correct I believe mine to be.
As I said to OP, stalemate. Cut and dry.
I'm angry? Now how can you be trusted, since you're clearly spreading a lie right there.
The creator is my God..derrrrr.
Also..you're just talking nonsense with your BR quote,
you're comaparing something that can be proved with HARD EVIDENCE,
with your own argument that you can clearly NOT PROVE.
GG.
Already heard the this argument anyway and there are plenty of arguments out there to refute your claims.
Last edited by Ethereal; 02-02-2011 at 10:17 AM.
I'm not asking for your trust. I said I am disproving your God. I do not call a creator God, you call your creator God. I'm not here to disprove the existence of a creator as a whole, in case, a being that created the universe. I am here to disprove the Judeo-Christian God, which is why it says "Your God" in the title. Because these religions makes up the vast majority of the religious world. Please begin reading behind the lines.
My logic is proof itself. If you are going to keep arguing the logic is not proof, please gtfo. Something can't exist and contradict itself. If you can't understand that then go back to kindergarten and attempt to rebuild your mind.
Lmao..and you said I was mad?
Oh boy...
Whatever bro. You still disproved nada.
Hard evidence that Elohim is not the creator or u gtfo.
As once stated by Arthur Schopenhauer;
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Christianity is in the first stage. Islam is in the second. Nonreligious sectors are in the third.
"We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter." ~ Denis Diderot
Guess it's my turn to say: Umad?
YUP. HE MAD
Don't sweat it fella,
I know you worked hard at presenting your recycled theory here.
I've already contributed plenty to this thread,
and if that was not the case, then why lower yourself to argue with a God fearing, God loving cretin like myself?
So far you've compared my intellect to that of a kindergartner,
yet you continue to reply to my posts.
Not saying too much about yourself my friend, now is it?
Well, this is going to be my final post in this thread.
I will respect your wishes and depart,
since it seems it doesn't matter what I post,
You sir, will just deem it nonsense.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Anytime I speak of God, I speak of God in the Bible.
In the Bible, God the father is the creator.(clearing up the earlier confusion)
Anyway,
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
The omnipotence argument:
Human languages do not contain words that correctly describe this supernatural characteristic of God.
This makes complete sense according to the characteristics of God in the scripture.
We are dealing with a logical paradox here..plain and simple.
It falls into the same category as; an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. If a force is truly irresistible, it can move any object. Conversely, if an object is truly immovable, it can resist any force.
Arguments like these don't really disprove God being all powerful..
They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature.
Here is a perfect example of this, and we were just discussing this in my Theology class about 3 weeks ago.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.
At this time, there was no word for sphere in Hebrew,
So as you see, the scribe that wrote for Isaiah had to use what was familiar to them to best describe God's message given to the prophet.
Interesting side fact here:
The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens. (just sayin)
So are you getting my point here..?
I started with it , and I will end with it.
The prophets did their best with the language they spoke,
to best convey God's message.
Whether it was perfect or not has been a subject of skepticism for many, many years. That is all.