Question

[Archaeopteryx]

Froedin, we only scratched the surface....and you want to stop looking. Instead of presnting ID I could have presented biblical prophecy fulfilled that go against all odds. Odds so large only a supernatural being (whom I call God) could have orchestrated.
There are many, many "proofs" that point directly to God. But to you, they ALL seem to be non-sensical arguments.
Perhaps you can present an argumet as to why there is no God.

You're new to this, aren't you?

 

[SteveB28]

Froedin, we only scratched the surface....and you want to stop looking. Instead of presnting ID I could have presented biblical prophecy fulfilled that go against all odds. Odds so large only a supernatural being (whom I call God) could have orchestrated.
There are many, many "proofs" that point directly to God. But to you, they ALL seem to be non-sensical arguments.
Perhaps you can present an argumet as to why there is no God.

He doesn't have to. The utter, utter failure of yours and thousands of other God claims is proof enough.

 

[-57]

No.

There are no gods.

Only human inventions.

YAWN

 

[-57]

You're new to this, aren't you?

Why don't you reply to my post rather than say....you're new to this. If you read my post you would see your error. Basically the atheist have nothing on this forum. I actually find you guys easy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why don't you reply to my post rather than say....you're new to this. If you read my post you would see your error. Basically the atheist have nothing on this forum. I actually find you guys easy.

I'm sure you do find us "easy." That's because you don't know what you're doing.

 

[-57]

He doesn't have to. The utter, utter failure of yours and thousands of other God claims is proof enough.

Why don't you reply to what I posted rather than mouthing off like the others? The atheist here arn't doing real well.

 

[-57]

I'm sure you do find us "easy." That's because you don't know what you're doing.

Post 191 shows you to be wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Post 191 shows you to be wrong.

Post 191 shows you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest reading a little more rather than puffing up with conceit over your perceived triumph.

 

[-57]

Post 191 shows you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest reading a little more rather than puffing up with conceit over your perceived triumph.

I consider you as a troll.

NEXT

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I consider you as a troll.

NEXT

That's okay. I don't even consider you a troll.

 

[SteveB28]

YAWN

Yawn all you like. Thousands like you have come before, touting thousands of different gods.

All have failed.

The only religious philosophy with a perfect record is atheism.

 

[SteveB28]

Why don't you reply to my post rather than say....you're new to this. If you read my post you would see your error. Basically the atheist have nothing on this forum. I actually find you guys easy.

Goodbye then. Wish I could say that it was nice meeting you.

 

[quatona]

That is common sense. Your problem is you can't see that it is.

:chuckle:

 

[Freodin]

OK, I see your point.
If so, what is the non-sense you talked about? What non-sense evidences (not related to science) are Christians usually give?

Take a look at the recent conversation with -57 in this very thread as an example.

 

[Freodin]

Answer this.....If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today? You keep doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe dance around that question.

And the next step of the non-sensical stuff that I mentioned earlier: false dichotomies.
It isn't a limited decision between "a God" and "nothing".


But even if that kind of invalidates your whole question, I'll try to explain my answer to it.

As others have said... we have to find what "nothing" is first. Let's take a look at your attempt at a definition:

"Nothing is void of everything. Complete and utter emptiness. Non-existent.
That may be "common sense"... but I don't think you went far enough.

"Emptiness"... now what is that? If there was "nothing", wouldn't that mean that even "emptiness" does not exist?

See, counterintuitive as it may be, counter to "common sense" as it may be... "nothing" is very hard to describe. We don't know "nothing". We don't have any experience with "nothing". Because in our space-time-matter universe, there never is "nothing".

So to use our space-time-matter "common sense" on something that has nothing to do with it at all... this is not a valid use of logic. (For that matter, if there is "nothing", would there be "logic"?)

Thus it is not possible for us to say what "nothing" would be like, and what could come from it.
Personally, I don't see "nothing" as "complete and utter emptiness". I see it as "something that you could never ever explain or describe. Something that is completely different from everything we know."

And thus the answer to your question would be:

"If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today?"

"Well, there is nothing to do it. But there is also nothing to not do it."

 

[juvenissun]

And the next step of the non-sensical stuff that I mentioned earlier: false dichotomies.
It isn't a limited decision between "a God" and "nothing".


But even if that kind of invalidates your whole question, I'll try to explain my answer to it.

As others have said... we have to find what "nothing" is first. Let's take a look at your attempt at a definition:

"Nothing is void of everything. Complete and utter emptiness. Non-existent.
That may be "common sense"... but I don't think you went far enough.

"Emptiness"... now what is that? If there was "nothing", wouldn't that mean that even "emptiness" does not exist?

See, counterintuitive as it may be, counter to "common sense" as it may be... "nothing" is very hard to describe. We don't know "nothing". We don't have any experience with "nothing". Because in our space-time-matter universe, there never is "nothing".

So to use our space-time-matter "common sense" on something that has nothing to do with it at all... this is not a valid use of logic. (For that matter, if there is "nothing", would there be "logic"?)

Thus it is not possible for us to say what "nothing" would be like, and what could come from it.
Personally, I don't see "nothing" as "complete and utter emptiness". I see it as "something that you could never ever explain or describe. Something that is completely different from everything we know."

And thus the answer to your question would be:

"If there ever was a time when NOTHING existed....how can there be stuff today?"

"Well, there is nothing to do it. But there is also nothing to not do it."

It took so much of your thinking to explain this "false dichotomy", even a well educated person needs to consider this argument carefully in order to understand. How can you call it a "nonsense"? If Christians can make this kind of "nonsense" and argue strongly for it, I would say the Christianity is very thoughtful and complicate philosophy.

Are you willing take the "nonsense" comment back?

 

[juvenissun]

Can you define "nothing"?

I can. It is in the Bible.
If you say Please, I will tell you what that is.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

There are no gods.

Only human inventions.

Human is not able to invent and facilitate the Christian God. (the reason is very simple, want to know that?)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Information is the code...the instruction...in the DNA.

Could you give an example?

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm interested to hear if any non-believers have seriously considered believing in God based on an argument or reason they heard from someone else, either on these forums or elsewhere.I would think that those of you who have been on these forums for an extended period of time would have come across some argument or reason that has brought you close to believing in God, but maybe the opposite is true, maybe all the arguments just reaffirm your non-belief.Do share if you want, thanks!

I did come to God as a non-believer due to testimonials of others that God presented to me.