What Does One Need to Know...

Originally posted by @fmf
This isn't an answer. The question was: Is every religion ~ and not just yours ~ fully entitled to cite "the universe" as evidence supporting its belief in a creator?

It is an answer, you may not like it, but explain the universe as is without God? This isn't
a circular question, there is cause and effect. Without it produce something that shows us
how everything else was produced.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]"What God did with putting together the Jewish nation and the Bible, sets the God of the Bible apart from everything and everyone else."

You place a lot of store on the ancient Hebrews creating a mythology and a religion thousands of years ago and placing themselves at the centre of it.[/b]

Well the word ancient simply means old, and truth doesn't become untrue due to the
passage of time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
It is an answer....

"Okay, whatever" is not an answer.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Well the word ancient simply means old, and truth doesn't become untrue due to the
passage of time.

That isn't the point.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Okay, whatever" is not an answer.

You are right, it was a response not an answer, because what was said I didn't think
required one.

Originally posted by @fmf
That isn't the point.

Not yours, but mine yes!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
It is an answer, you may not like it, but explain the universe as is without God? This isn't
a circular question, there is cause and effect. Without it produce something that shows us
how everything else was produced.

"Circular logic" was a reference to what you said about "the list" in your religion's book - in other books - being evidence that your religion is true.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Exactly why do you think the evidence is non-existent? The entire universe is evidence in
my opinion. If you disagree where did everything come from? Do you agree that nothing
can only produce nothing? Can we agree that there isn't anything that wasn't there
before that spontaneously created itself either? I’m of the opinion that the universe did
not c ...[text shortened]... king now
for thousands of years, it has to be beyond our wildest dreams on what is yet to come.

Morning Kelly. Please note that I clearly stated:

'The best we can do sir is provide evidence and argument that the 'idea of God,' as an all-powerful and perfectly loving deity, is non-existent.'


If Mr X asserts that a God exists who created everything, but of whom we know very little, due to our finite nature, then I would indeed (as an atheist) be unable to provide evidence that such a God doesn't exist.

However, if Mr Z asserts that a God exists who created everything AND that this God is not only all-powerful but is also perfectly loving, then this is a God that I (as an atheist) can confidently evidence is non-existent.

How can I evidence this? - Well to rehash a quote (the author of which eludes me) 'What are we to say of a child dying of cancer. Either God cannot intervene or he will not. If he 'cannot' then he is not all powerful, and if he 'will not' then he is not perfectly loving.'

If Mr Z had claimed ONLY that God was all-powerful then I wouldn't be able to evidence His non-existence. (As it could be argued, for example, that God simply didn't care about the child's suffering). Similarly, if Mr Z had claimed ONLY that God was all loving, then I wouldn't be able to dismiss His existence. (As it could be argued, for example, that God was powerless to prevent the child's suffering). The moment however that Mr Z attributes his God with both omnipotence and omnibenevolence I can confidently shake my head and mutter, 'impossible.'

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Morning Kelly. Please note that I clearly stated:

'The best we can do sir is provide evidence and argument that the 'idea of God,' as an all-powerful and perfectly loving deity, is non-existent.'


If Mr X asserts that a God exists who created everything, but of whom we know very little, due to our finite nature, then I would indeed (as an ath ...[text shortened]... h both omnipotence and omnibenevolence I can confidently shake my head and mutter, 'impossible.'

Evidence is something that points to the truth of a matter, now in a courtroom there are
always arguments for and against what the 'evidence' means in a case. You suggesting
there isn't evidence simply isn't true, you may not accept the meaning behind what I am
saying, but it is evidence nonetheless.

Assertions are made all the time by people, the earth is billions of years old is an
assertion, evolution means that all life started from a single lifeform is an assertion and
we can go round and round talking about why we believe these things to be true or false
but we do so talking about the evidence both sides bring to the table.

Suggesting God isn't loving because you see things that would in your opinion mean that
if God were loving it would never occur means that cancer is evidence. I can say what I
think that means too, that we live in a fallen world and we are dealing with the fruit of our
actions, living in the consequences of our actions and sins, making the evil we see
around us evidence as well.

If all you have to dismiss God is that if you were God you'd do it differently that isn't really
looking at the evidence, that is just pushing your views as if they were the only way things
would be done if God were real.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Circular logic" was a reference to what you said about "the list" in your religion's book - in other books - being evidence that your religion is true.

Actually circular logic would be the earth is billions of years old, how do you know, well
we have these rocks that are billions of years old, how do you know, because the earth
is billions of years old.

Stating that a list and history makes the Bible stand apart isn't circular it is stating
something that I agree with, there isn't anything else like it. I'm not saying that believe
the scriptures because they prove God is real, why because God is real, just look at
the scriptures.

Accept it or reject it, it is evidence that points to God.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Actually circular logic would be the earth is billions of years old, how do you know, well
we have these rocks that are billions of years old, how do you know, because the earth
is billions of years old.

Nobody says this.

Originally posted by @fmf
Nobody says this.

🙂 I just did as an example.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Stating that a list and history makes the Bible stand apart isn't circular it is stating
something that I agree with, there isn't anything else like it. I'm not saying that believe
the scriptures because they prove God is real, why because God is real, just look at
the scriptures.

So it's "true" because it has "the list" in it and because you think "the list" is "true", you think the scripture is "true"?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
🙂 I just did as an example.

Yes but it's daft nonsense. Use your own obvious circular logic as the example. No need to use a daft example.

Originally posted by @fmf
So it's "true" because it has "the list" in it and because you think "the list" is "true", you think the scripture is "true"?

If I find something truthful you think that I believe it because I feel it is in error or a lie? You want to twist this do so, at some point whatever we accept as truth stands alone as it is reality or not.