- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Mar 17
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am willing to listen to this irrefutable evidence on one condition: you first convince your fellow theists that it is valid 'irrefutable evidence'. I believe posters such as Suzianne have claimed that no such evidence exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a strange condition to insist upon for simply viewing the video.
Atheists can have nuances of varied opinions and differences between them all they want.
But theists have to all be in lockstep total monolithic agreement about everything ?
Is that the impression you want to give?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonshipI would think that irrefutable evidence could be presented before YouTube existed. Why can it not be presented in words on this forum?
[b] I am willing to listen to this irrefutable evidence on one condition: you first convince your fellow theists that it is valid 'irrefutable evidence'. I believe posters such as Suzianne have claimed that no such evidence exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a strange condition to insist ...[text shortened]... kstep total monolithic agreement about everything ?
Is that the impression you want to give?[/b]
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwI know you don't need to prove it. My point is that you can't.
I don't need to prove it.
Your conscience tells you you're lying to yourself about the existence of God.
No it doesn't. But of course you will just claim I am lying.
You're suppressing the truth against yourself. It's just that simple.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephw"The evidence for a creator is all that exists. "
I'm not the one that needs to flip.
The evidence for a creator is all that exists. What you're doing is flipping out by imagining that creation isn't the work of an omniscient creator.
It's delusional to form the thought in your head that all that exists came from nothing, which is based on evidence that doesn't exist.
That's as illogical as it gets ...[text shortened]... Any thought contrary to that concept is evidenced by nothing, and is the evidence for delusion.
Is the fact that things exist at all, the irrefutable evidence for a creator, or is it the fact that certain specifiable things (like, say, rational beings, or living beings) exist? Or is it something else?
Why be so coy about it?
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonshipNothing strange about it. Its a long video and I know for a fact that he can't meet the conditions and won't even try because he knows perfectly well that he lied about the videos contents.
That's a strange condition to insist upon for simply viewing the video.
Atheists can have nuances of varied opinions and differences between them all they want.
But theists have to all be in lockstep total monolithic agreement about everything ?
No, not at all. But he claimed it was irrefutable evidence. If his fellow Christians can refute it even if it would surely be in their interests to support such evidence, then it isn't all that irrefutable is it?
Is that the impression you want to give?
No, that was not what I was going for.
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwThe real question is why you felt the need to tell us this ie why start the thread at all? Your whole premise is that we know 'the truth' already and are just lying to ourselves, but you show no interest in actually helping us get out of our predicament. So are you just gloating?
Your conscience tells you you're lying to yourself about the existence of God.
06 Mar 17
Why don't you all stop trying to blow smoke up my ass. We've been in this argument for years and years. Apparently a nerve has been exposed.
All you can do is deny the existence of a creator and try and lay a guilt trip on me for calling you out on being delusional. The evidence exists for intelligent design, but you have no evidence at all you can use to prove a negative.
Evolution is the biggest farce ever imagined and everybody knows it.
Why don't you be honest and admit you're trying to live in a vacuum, void of the very essence of life itself, with an empty, cold and lifeless eternity just one heartbeat away.
No God? An absolute lie. And you know it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe title of this thread is evidence of a troll.
The real question is why you felt the need to tell us this ie why start the thread at all? Your whole premise is that we know 'the truth' already and are just lying to ourselves, but you show no interest in actually helping us get out of our predicament. So are you just gloating?
Why? He's a troll, just not a very successful one this time.
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. - urban dictionary
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Mar 17
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357Tell me though JS357 -
I would think that irrefutable evidence could be presented before YouTube existed. Why can it not be presented in words on this forum?
Who has the final authority to decide whether something has been refuted or not ?
Since anyone may say - "This is irrefutable evidence"
And anyone else can say "No, that evidence has been refuted"
how are we going to know with infallible authority that any evidence for anything has or has not been refuted?
The way I see it is that whoever really determines that something is true has also to possess the ability to enforce the verdict.
It seems to me that at some point the refutation of reality (one way or the other) has to be terminated. IE. if there is no God, at some point in history further argument will be terminated and the decision enforced. "There will be no more argument."
Conversely if God does exist. at some point the argument is concluded. Claims of refutation of the evidence have run out, been exhausted, and come to an end.
One way or the other, I think it must be a question concluded not only by authority but by enforcing power. Someone, I believe, has to be able to maintain an untruth forever and put down truth forever. Or someone has to be able to uphold truth forever and finally put down untruth forever.
Whoever argues the most forcefully that there is no God will have to virtually take the position of God and enforce an end to the controversy. Something intuitively tells me that no LIE can or will live forever.
The Bible (towards which I am biased) tells me that history of an age concluding with a figure on earth substituting himself for God. I do not see an final argument that there is no God but rather INSTEAD of God there is this one.
"... the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or an object of worship, so that he sits in the temple of God, [in Jerusalem apparently] setting himself forth, saying that he is God. " (2 Thess. 2:3c-4)
Now you didn't ask. So I apologize (some) for writing stuff you didn't ask about.
How I see this phase of history concluding is not Atheism verses Theism. But I see Idolatry verses Theism. I see Atheism as only a little landmark on the way to a further destination - a concluding Idolatry substituting someone else for, and instead of God. This figure is called the Antichrist in prophecy. it means "instead of Christ".
it seems that God allows the world situation to polarize in such a way that a personage is allowed to rise up to be like a reservoir accumulate all who refuse to give up the idea that evidence for God is still refuted. Something else seems to be at work in them.
Paul goes on -
" For it is the mystery of lawlessness that is now operating, but only until the one now restraining goes out of the way.
And then the lawless one will be revealed (whom the Lord Jesus will slay by the breath of His mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of His coming).
The coming of whom [Antichrist] is according to Satan's operation in all power and signs and wonders of a lie and all deceit of unrighteousness among those who are perishing,
because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. And because of this God sends to them an operation or error that they might believe the lie,
So that all who have not believed the truth but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness might be judged." (vs. 7 - 12)
It says that this figure will be revealed "in his own time". This is the last refuter to any evidence that God is.
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephwScience does not claim that "all came from nothing". We actually have no idea where the universe came from and we may never find out. And that's fine.
It's delusional to form the thought in your head that all that exists came from nothing, which is based on evidence that doesn't exist.
What is not fine is to exchange that "don't know" with "then it must be 'a creator'".
What is definitely not fine is then, when asked where this creator came from, simply reply with something like "the creator is eternal and needs no beginning or creation".
First you are using an argument from ignorance, then you are being hypocritical by not applying the same rigorous standards for "a creator" as you did for "all that exists".
Basically, you're talking bollocks and you know it, I know it, fellow atheists know it and the other theists know it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Mar 17
3 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatWhat is definitely not fine is then, when asked where this creator came from, simply reply with something like "the creator is eternal and needs no beginning or creation".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand.
Its ok to say "The universe always was. It was not created."
But its definitely not ok to say "God always was. God was never created."
Why can't the same thing a believer in an eternal universe says cannot be said by a believer in an uncreated eternal Creator ? How come ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King Rat
Science does not claim that "all came from nothing". We actually have no idea where the universe came from and we may never find out.
So we, by our instruments of research and measurement, may NEVER find out.
But we can take a belief.
Where do you THINK it came from Great King Rat?
Just "I don't know" ?
Consider the DNA molecule that the video spoke a lot about.
Where do you think this universe came from ?
You're allowed to have a belief.
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by josephw"...blow smoke up my ass..."
Why don't you all stop trying to blow smoke up my ass. We've been in this argument for years and years. Apparently a nerve has been exposed.
All you can do is deny the existence of a creator and try and lay a guilt trip on me for calling you out on being delusional. The evidence exists for intelligent design, but you have no evidence at all you can use to ...[text shortened]... old and lifeless eternity just one heartbeat away.
No God? An absolute lie. And you know it.
Er... this doesn't mean what you think it means either.
Also, you're obviously lying. The pattern of your posting clearly demonstrates that you don't actually believe in god and are in fact only pretending that you do because you can't deal with reality and you think this crutch might help.
06 Mar 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHey Joe where you going with that keyboard in your hand?
Joe ,Joe, please step away from the keyboard. Your reasoning is painful.
How about we give it a flip and say those who claim God exist are lying to themselves? That deep inside you know there isn't really a creator and are just trying to avoid the accountability and certainty of mortal death and decay,....avoid the obvious.
How'd you like those apples?