I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

Where did it begin and where does it end?........ Well.....In a continuum, there is no beginning and there is no end.....

Incomprehension is what compels a mind to declare that the universe is simply finite having begun from nothing..... Poof, first we had eternal nothingness and then poof the universe has sprung forth from some unknown cause.....

On the other end, we have the eternal God.... Now, before God decided to create some sort of tangible arena as an expression of himself.... Well, what was God but eternal nothingness?
Yes, God poof, the first conception of the 'universe', whenever or whatever that looked like, has sprung from nothingness as his creation!!!???!!!
Sounds similar doesn't it?

It is simple incomprehension that has brought about both of these conclusions......

Mass has always existed in some form or another, perhaps for a moment as a localized 'void'.
Now, if God exists..... The universe is the arena having existed just as the mind would have to conclude it to be.... An infinite continuum!

This is the difficult part for the believer, the bible and it's description of God creating the universe and it's highly contradictory timeline as it pertains to visible light...... It's a rather absurd conclusion for a 'creator' of this magnificent universe; whether or not it is a divine being, or simply the physical characteristics of mass.

 

i might be an atheist when it comes to faith then i don’t believe in the gods

But as far as what i claim to know im agnostic i guess i don’t know if there are gods or not and i don’t want my faith to make me lie and say i know there are not gods that’s no better than declaring there are gods by faith

 

If I were to indulge the concept of God beyond the bound pages of a silly book, this is what it would look like to my mind and it's inherently creative nature!

Exploring aspects of quantum mechanics, I could not deny an infinite universe. I found an utter profound brilliance within it in thought. If we were contained within a box, we would remain focused upon the point of containment.
Where did it come from? Why is it here? What lies beyond it? What lies beyond that?
We might even contemplate infinity, but the reality would always remain specifically on that point of containment.
The mind is much the same, provide it with an absolute and it will never extend beyond it. It will in fact, go to great measure to hold everything within those walls of containment, believing everything beyond it is wrong.
For me and what the focal aspect of the universe and it's brilliance speaks too..... The potential of expression within the mind is infinite, to provide it with a single aspect of absolutism would severely hinder that expression. To set a mind truly free within it's own desire, and to nurture every aspect of it's expression; it would expand in an unfathomable beauty that emanates from it's very core.
Put every mind together in the same expression of freedom and beauty, knowledge begins to develop exponentially at a rate that our minds within this existence we adhere too, could not even begin to comprehend.
Where did our minds develop in thought?
We became observers. Anything that could not be explained through observation was given to the Gods. Just as we are able to create, the world must have been created by something much the same. Why then after creating the world would there exist all these things that destroy that which the Gods created? It must be because the Gods are angry at us..... And thus, when we please the Gods they provide us with warmth, shelter, food and plenty; when we displease them, they shower their wrath down upon us.
Every concept of God is based upon these same principals of reward or punishment. It is a fear based belief..... FEAR, the wall of containment that prevents the individual from realizing the beauty and infinite variances in expression that exist within every life.

 

Good rebuttal Neutral. Now As the creator of this thread, I know I should be more scientific in my critical thinking. However, I find that all of the atheists here and abound, reject God because they don't believe that one entity could create everything out of nothing. They reject the existence of God because they claim there is no proof. I have proof now.

Atheists here claim (sorry for not saying who) claim that a flunctuation or a expansion of energy and mass just exploded from nothing. Or how they put it, from another universe. So a new universe from an old universe.

Now After all of that. Atheists STILL do not believe in God. A simple premise. God created everything.

But they do believe all of this scientific bologni thrown at them by people who hate GOD and try to unexplain GOD and have always failed. So I ask everyone, why is it ok to believe in theory 1 and not theory 2?

Why am I crazy and stupid ( I been called that) for believing that GOD created everything with a touch of his finger? If they themselves believe some ******* explanation of everything. If they believe in their own BS shouldn't they also believe in my BS?

 

Reminder of avoidance!
A demonstration of behavior that is highly illogical!

 

I'm not going to answer that Revol. Simply because you will reject the logic behind my statements. And from my experience, everything you say here can and will be used against you by Atheists.

 

Reject logic??????
If it adheres to simple logic, how is it possible to reject it without also severely discrediting yourself?
So no, I would never reject logic!

These are not difficult questions I have asked, nor will I do anything but ask more questions...... If you discredit yourself in answering or even avoiding those questions, it is by your own volition in doing so.

 

Here is an aspect of truth that I find highly logical and also profoundly brilliant......

If you apply any question that is possible to a concept of truth; wouldn't every answer to every question, only serve in strengthening and solidifying said truth?

Why on earth within a demonstration of such profound logic, would you ever shy away from a single question???

 

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

 

I been answering these questions for many years. I direct you to this thread.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread313296/pg1




Topic started on 5-11-2007 @ 03:46 AM by jedimiller
Premise: When you are walking down the street you feel the cool air hitting your face. you look around, yet you see nothing. Air is invisible.

Conclusion: you don't see the Air, but you came to the conclusion that if you feel it in your face. it must be real. Therefore, something that you can't see has suddenly become real. And you have accepted that fact.


GOD.

Premise. When you are walking down the street on your way to church, you feel good. warm and happy. You belive in god and you know he's there watching you. and you pray to him.

Conclusion. You don't see God, but you came to the conclusion that if you Feel god, it must be real. therefore, god is real. and you have accepted that fact. The fact that, it doesn't matter if you can see something or not. But if you FEEL it. you know it's real.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by jedimiller]

 

I sometimes use the phrase or word 'higher power' or 'force' because some people are afraid of the word 'God' because they think it stains them somehow. That has always puzzled me because some of the most intelligent most accomplished people in the world are believers. The way I look at it is that if there is a force that is powerful enough and intelligent enough to cause a universe to begin to exist that qualifies as God. Some get religion confused with God. Religion only describes what man thinks is associated with God and what the attributes of God are. If an alien race say a billion years more advanced than we, a race that had achieved immortality etc and that created our universe, and us by any method, I would have no problem calling them ‘God’. That is because we would be lower than a virus on their scale, the things that they would be able to do would make them God. If Jesus came back in a space ship that would not depress me it would excite me! I am a minister/pastor and have a MA in comparative religion (a partial title) however and know many people in the field. I would be run out of most churches for saying (the above about Jesus etc). Many people are close minded both believers and atheists.

Abductive reasoning and Deductive reasoning via the KCA. Also the circumstantial evidences of the design of the universe, and a lot of other items.

reva

 

Perhaps you could use simple logic and explain how any of this is remotely close to an attempt at answering the very direct and simple questions I have posed?

Seriously, you declare that you "will now prove atheists are illogical" and you can't demonstrate even a hint of logic by answering a simple question with a direct response?

Unbelievable!

 

Further reminder of questions simply avoided..... Note, none of these questions require an in depth answer..... ?????? SO?????

 

You call those simple questions? How can you say those are simple questions? It would take me 3 pages to explain, besides I think you are baiting me with those questions. Do you really think anyone can answer those? If I do answer you will require proof and I have none.

I can tell you how God created the Universe and everything in it. But NOT how he created himself, as he has not spoken to me about that, I do keep a close communication with him. Hope that makes sense Revol.

 

Well now, there is an attempt at an answer...... Let me show you how simple deductive reasoning and logic is used in application!!!!

This simply poses another simple question.....

How can God create himself if he didn't already exist?

Seems we can use simple logic to deduct that God definitely didn't create himself!
Didn't take 3 pages to figure that one out!

 

Hahahaha. This is turd rubbish. I knew you would use my explanation on NOT answering the questions to use them against me. See? Christians are not stupid afterall.

I didn't answer your ridiculous question, but you can answer this:

1.How do you know Another God didn't create our God?
2.How do you know Another Universe didn't create our Universe?
3.How do you know Another Universe didn't create our God?
4.How do you know Another God didn't create our Universe?

 

Using simple logic towards the premise of god
#1 If another God created our God, then that would certainly be the ultimate creator and God...... So back to the original question that you refuse to answer, what created that ultimate creator?

#2 As I have already discussed, in a continuum.... It is possible and also highly probable, so how does this pertain to a creator?

#3 If another universe created our God, then by your argument, that universe must have a creator..... So we are right back at the questions that you refuse to answer! Congrats!

#4 Does it bring us any closer to answering the questions you refuse to address regardless of any possible notion of even a far removed God that has created our universe?

 

Again, didn't take three pages to figure that one out!

 

We should change the title of this thread to.....

-Part 2 of Jedimiller avoiding simple questions at all costs-

 

Fine. You are irritating me with your questions. Why do I have to answer all your questions? What about the others?

I will answer your question this way. Look at this illustration.



Influations and Quantum Fluctuations created OUR Universe.
Therefore, according to this logic, God was created by Influations and Quantum Fluctuations.



Now you must believe in God. Hope it helps.

 

my response to bits from the 2nd link the 1st one not working for me

Not from me--The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

Above seems self-deafening everything must have a cause except the one thing that must not need a case to make the whole thing work
Below not from me
1. Whatever be2gins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

From me again-- If something doesn’t need a cause then number 1 may not be true the uncaused cause doesn’t necessary need to always have been their it just needs to have happened 2 works but 3 may not because the universe in some form could have been the uncaused cause that only occurred a finite time and cause/effect chain ago


Not from me-- The first argument states that an actual infinite cannot exist. A part of an infinite set is equal to the whole of the infinite set, because both the part and the whole are infinite. Imagine for example an infinite collection of red and black balls. The number of red balls in this set is equal to the total number of all balls in the set, because both are infinite. The same holds for the number of black balls in the collection. Thus, the number of red balls equals the number of black balls equals the sum of all red and black balls. Obviously, the idea of an actual infinite collection leads to absurdities. This is also true for a set of historical events: it can be derived that the occurrence of a truly infinite set of events happening before a certain moment in time is impossible.

Still not from me-- History, or the collection of all events in time, is made up by sequentially adding one event after the other. It is always possible to add another event to history, which means the history of the universe, is a potential infinite but can never be an actual infinite.

Well I can see how having a larger and smaller infinity can be a problem and getting to one point in time from an infinite amount of time away seems impossible (unless time and cause and effect itself is some kind of illusion and everything exists at once anyhow)

So if were going with an uncaused cause and a finite chain of times and causes between now and it what makes that uncaused cause or god if that’s your word for it a person?


Not from me-- It is interesting that Craig also argues that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. In his words: "The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time."

Like I said I’m not sure the 1st cause has to be eternal it could have just popped into being for the hell of it at some point and the chain of normal cause and effect as we know it could have kicked in immediately afterword’s. Making it eternal gets you back into the infinite history again where you have the 1st cause being their forever and after the end of forever doing something
Unless again time cause and effect are all illusions and all things somehow manage to exists at once making cause and effect a faulty idea to begin with

 

Really? You have proof there is a god? By all means, let's review that. What is your proof?

 

Looks like the question of a 'singularity' has already been answered:

Romans 4:17

...the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing.

If one has a problem with that, then lets see their proof to the contrary.

 

Well, there is logic for you. Let's just ignore the faith requirement of ... faith. Let's ignore the fact that the proof for God is decidedly non-conclusive, ignore all the preponderance of the evidence cases that make God ... possible. And then ignore the fact that religious people take an acknowledged leap of faith.

Atheists, in sharp contrast, do not claim any faith at all. They claim that it is evidence, science, a triumph of reason that leads inevitably to no God. Yet what they ask for is not a demonstration of logic in support of that claim - they ask the faithful to abandon faith in support of non-science and prove what they know proof cannot.

And so we finally get the arguement from ignorance:

If you cannot conclusively prove there is a God, then there must NOT be a God!

The reverse is however, immediately rejected by atheists:

If you cannot conclusively disprove God, then there must BE a God!

"The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim."

http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html

Given that this logical fallacy is so often used by atheists, its one more niche on the belt in the evidence that atheism is illogical.

 

Wow., I am convinced. The rantings of the apostle Paul. One line, with nothing to support it, proves the the existence of some god.

Nah, I am going to go with science in this one rather than a guy who, almost 2,000 years ago, wrote something on a piece of parchment.