A sudden emurgence of christian nuts...

[lolzorz mcgee]

-secondquote-

You're very negative about things, aren't you? 

[Ad Bot]

[Inv3rted]

I actually have an argument to that based on that every choice leads to a specific path (though each path has their own choices creating a web)
I had a 2 page loving explanation for that too. It was so epic... but now of course loving steven hawking came up with something almost identical to that. Think its called matrix theory or something like that. Too lazy to actually look it up and read about it right now though

Stephen Hawking is irrelevant, because he is an atheist. Do not quote mine.

God created everything and would have predicted suffering. It is possible to have free will without the option of suffering.

[Inv3rted]

I would also like to point out that there are things that do escape black holes, courtesy of Stephen Hawking (who still doesn't have a Nobel prize..), so even their lives are not infinite.

[Deathwish]

Religion's caused a hell of a lot of wars, and should be banned by every government in the world, to prevent war.

[KnightOfOblivion]

I'm a devout catholic so what?

AHAHAHA! That picture was funny. anyways I've been a free religion, As long as no one hates on me, I'm fine.

[Ladios]

Actually I thought I did, thats what the predone arguments were supposed to cover but ok.

How can I disprove the God you believe in? (not all deities, just the specific omnipotent one that spread the most foul stuff on our species)
cant prove stuff dont exist
Quite simple.

I ask you the question: Is your God infinite?
How is any one man to know the nature of such a devine being.
Thats like me asking "Are there particles that exist inside electrons", either answer you give I then say that you giving that answer proves electrons dont exist... what?

There are two answers that you can give me that are definite: yes and no.
Because a defininte answer to a question about infinitey surely makes sense

If you say yes, then we proceed to the next step. If you say no, then you have just undermined your core beliefs. If the core creator is not infinite, it must have been created. Therefore it is not the creator.
Unless it came into being on its own accord, but actually i still go with the perecptually infininate, but again its impossible to know

If you answered yes, you have also disproved your God's existence. Infinity is something unachievable in the finite universe we exist in. Thats kinda the thing for God, he is unavheivable and incomprehensable Now, of course you are going to run off to google and say "OH LOOK AT ALL OF THESE THINGS OF INFINITE THIS AND THAT" without understanding that they are not literally infinite, but practically so. conic sections extend into infinity Take the gravitational pull of a black hole. People say it has infinite gravity, but it does not. k It is just so massive that particles moving at the speed of light (something that can not be achieved by anything with mass, due to special relativity, because this speed would require an infinite amount of energy, and infinities are not possible) can not escape. of course with the theory that light particles actually do have mass, just in another form (being energy) lets them be affected by gravity. Planets themselves create wells in space that electromagnetic energy gets disrupted by. But still, what does this have to do with God? Without mass, anything can move at the speed of light (but not faster) because Newton's second law and its applications. Mass is comparable to energy and can be transferred between the two. Anything that exists can travel at the speed of light but at the same time cant because of the whole becoming more massive requireing more force etc etc... thats what limits are for, yay calculus

But I digress, and so now I will refer to the rebuttals I expect you will provide. that I probably have already anticipated and wanted to skip this teir of argument in the firstplace

1. God exists in spiritual form, therefore is immaterial and supernatural. God exists in an energetical form that we cannot as humans comprehend, and is more of a driving force in the universe than an actual being
If something is immaterial, it does not exist. light doesnt exist There is no way that anything supernatural exists, by definition. of course, but who said God was supernatural?... oh wait you said that I said that... thanks for putting words in my mouth Supernatural means it is above nature, and anything above nature is not nature and therefore does not exist within nature. To say that there is a spiritual form of a superior being is pure speculation. so is claiming that i will automaticall have certain beleifes It can not be documented, it can not be observed, it can not be tested. Yet, there are many theories of dimensions that are currently incromprehendable by humans that overlay our current realm of existance Therefore it is not science. yay science If something can not be shown to exist by the scientific method, it simply does not exist in our reality. or we havent found out how to prove it yet
2. God exists outside of our universe, and so does not need to follow its laws. I never said this either
There is no existing outside of the universe, because the universe is existence. well put If you say that God dwells in a parallel universe wtf is a parallel universe, there are alternate planes of choice and such, matrix theory, but its not in a form that we can compare our universe to etc etc, there are laws there that must be followed, and you are saying you know these laws... albeit different from this universe's. If something exists, it can not be above the rules of existence. again, I do not beleive that He exists in a paralell univserse, actually I absolutely despise that term, I beleive he resides in a form on this universe that we have not the ability to measure yet. To assume humans can count and calculate everything that goes on is just conceited

There is also the 'free will' argument that you people tend to love. Free will is only able to exist if you support the chaos theory and I am going to take a guess that you, infact, do not, so I am rather going to be bored reading this next segment i suppose

You say that evil exists because God granted humanity the ability of free will. evil exists as choosing "not God" for lack of a better term, as such we choose it for ourselves, we create it for ourselves, its not that because of free will evil exists, its what free will leads to

There are more flaws in this statement than in the assumption that a theory is not true. In the statemnt you are saying right now or that previous one, cause I dont really agree with the previous one and I have no idea what you are talking about for the "theory is not true" thing

God is omni-everything, as I like to put it. k He can predict anything, cause anything, unless it is to alter free will stop anything, create anything, do anything. that he is supposed to do, he wont just randomly decide to turn the world into a giant brick of brie cheese.... yum... The Universe and its laws are his plaything and construction set not really, in my theory, he is basically the overlying sturcture to the universe (unfortunately not possible, but I'll play along)I am noticing that you must not have read my argument at all by this point.... If he really is omniscient, he will have predicted the existence of evil long before first sin. yup If he really is omnipotent, he would have had the power to stop it. yup If he really was Wholly Good, as the Bible says, he would have stopped it. nope, we chose for evil, its our choice, thats our gift, But, evil exists, and therefore God does not. if anything this kinda reinforced that free will statement

Furthermore, let's take a look the original sin concept k (harmful to humanity, because it makes us believe that we were once higher than we are currently and fell due to unnatural immorality (what an oxymoron) dunno how thats oxymoronic, but ok, we were higher in that we had not chosen against god yet, and this assumption makes us be less tolerant of what life is and what suffering is what?. Good and evil isn't so black and white as we do not know what the entire will of the universe is, of course). God, with his perfection, creates a perfect creation with free will. who the hell said we were perfect? the mere ability to choose against God already is downside, but at least we can make the choice to go towards his plan etc. Of course, this free will must include the naive ability to be exploited to break orders that are not explained properly. Because "Don't eat that loving apple you dumbstuffs" is not explicit enough If God created everything, then God would have created the root of all evil, namely Satan. the root of all evil is the capablity for man to choose against God, so in that sens I guess you are right. If you wanna go all mythological, Satan was an angle who was able to gain freewill, which angels arn't supposed to have due to what happens when the choose agaisnt God (hence his name nowadays) If God created Satan, he created the exploiter and humans with the ability to be exploited. yup, because we chose against God Therefore, he caused the fall from Eden, and he is to blame for original sin. we chose the "fall from eden" as you will. However I do not beleive the garden of Eden happened exactly the way it was, I beleive if eden existed, there were only two humans there, but in other lands at the time there still were people. Eden being more of a specific "expirament" for humans to express their free will

There is also the question as to why a God would torture his own creations we do it ourselves because they made decisions he allowed them to make, rather than simply destroying them for being faulty (creations of perfection shouldn't have faults...) when at all did I say we are perfect? This makes me see God as a sadist, the root of all evil, a poor designer, and possibly every other negative attribute you can assign to anything. A spring company makes a spring, it gets put into a gun, and used to shoot someone, the people at the spring factory also made the same springs and that would go into pens, toys, etc. It just so happened that one shipment was used for guns that shot people. This means all the workers at the spring factory are now murderers.

I'd rather burn in hell than worship this sack of stuff of a man in the clouds.Ur dum  [/list]

After reading every single thing you said I have determined that you infact did not even skim what I wrote. Try making a unique argument towards my point of view, which I specifically said would differ from others, than to just throw the generic attack at me (some of which i covered in my first teir argument things)

[Ladios]

Stephen Hawking is irrelevant, because he is an atheist. Do not quote mine.

God created everything and would have predicted suffering. It is possible to have free will without the option of suffering.

Wow arn't you discriminatory. Just because someone doesnt beleive in God, they arn't allowed to have an opinion? Sheesh, how rude.

Whoops too late

Indeed so but we chose the suffering. If he were to interfere in any way, it wouldn't exactly be free will, now would it?

[Mateo]

2. God exists outside of our universe, and so does not need to follow its laws.
There is no existing outside of the universe, because the universe is existence.

Sorry to be a lil bitch, but this guy thinks differently.

[Inv3rted]

Wow arn't you discriminatory. Just because someone doesnt beleive in God, they arn't allowed to have an opinion? Sheesh, how rude.

Whoops too late

Indeed so but we chose the suffering. If he were to interfere in any way, it wouldn't exactly be free will, now would it?

You are taking someone with my point of view and using them as an example against their own argument.

It's very naive to assume that a universe can not exist without suffering and free will. We as a species can not imagine other dimensions, you can not make the assumption that it is impossible.

Sorry to be a lil bitch, but this guy thinks differently.

Again, more quote mining. When I was referring to 'the universe' I mentioned the possible existence of parallel universes. Collectively they are known as the multiverse. But the same rules still apply; you can not exist outside of them. Existing in the multiverse requires existence within a universe.

Michio Kaku is an atheist. You people really do not know your science.

If you can not comprehend something, you can not know of its existence. This is speculation, and is not regarded as science. The existence of the multiverse is still hypothetical.

Theories are the highest level a hypothesis can go without mathematical proof (which isn't possible in all instances.)

My question was not infinite. It was a question about an attribute. I was not asking something like what infinity^2 is.

Everything that exists can be determined so by the scientific method. You can not plead ignorance and say that there is no evidence because we're too dumb. For your hypothesis to be followed, you must find evidence. The existence of God is just a hypothesis.

"A spring company makes a spring, it gets put into a gun, and used to shoot someone, the people at the spring factory also made the same springs and that would go into pens, toys, etc. It just so happened that one shipment was used for guns that shot people. This means all the workers at the spring factory are now murderers."

The creator of everything is responsible for everything. If he is indeed so far beyond our limits of comprehension, he would have created a far less imperfect universe.

"After reading every single thing you said I have determined that you infact did not even skim what I wrote. Try making a unique argument towards my point of view, which I specifically said would differ from others, than to just throw the generic attack at me (some of which i covered in my first teir argument things)"

You simply pulled a circular argument and displayed it as a rebuttal. I said that the free will argument is null and proved it, and all you said was that 'we have free will so we can be evil'.

[Inv3rted]

A hole in my previous post's logic was that I stated that we cannot comprehend things and so we can not deem them to be impossible. You say that God is incomprehendable.

What I forgot to mention was that the way God is described in the Bible is simply impossible. A creator entity can not be disproven, but the biblical god can.

[Bisjac]

im tired of religious folk spitting out rules from their god. then when science ignores them and advances technology, they claim it was a gift from god that allowed us to do so.

god can only take credit for slowing down society

[Zaran]

Ladios:

God exists in a purely energetical form that we as humans cannot understand?  What I don't understand is how you somehow have knowledge that no other human has.

Every evil person in history didn't believe in god?  Holy stuff!

I won't even bother to waste as much time debating as you did writing that block of assumptions.  All you did was take Rex's logic and make stuff up.  The points where you got confused, you ignored.  When you can make readable and accurate points, I'll start taking you seriously.

Ur dum

[zoneark]

Yay religious war!

[A.R.C.]

Burn the heathens! 

[Mateo]

Again, more quote mining. When I was referring to 'the universe' I mentioned the possible existence of parallel universes. Collectively they are known as the multiverse. But the same rules still apply; you can not exist outside of them. Existing in the multiverse requires existence within a universe.

Michio Kaku is an atheist. You people really do not know your science.

since when is someones religious beliefs considered science?

If you can not comprehend something, you can not know of its existence. This is speculation, and is not regarded as science. The existence of the multiverse is still hypothetical.

but this guy thinks differently.

If I was going to say things regarding your comment, I would have done so. If I had fully believed that what the person in that video said was true I would have quoted the parts that best related to what you said... However I figure he could explain his thoughts much better than I can explain his thoughts.

Please note that me not thinking that everything that man said was completely without a doubt true does not mean that I think none of it is true or could be true. The idea of a multiverse has not yet been proven, so it can't be said that his hypothesis is correct, however it could be correct and was relevant to this conversation.