My view on god and atheism versus creationism

Autism

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
466
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
lol look up contradictions in the bible see if your "faith" stays strong.
I have, plenty of times. Check out godandscience.org for debunking of every contradiction in the bible. No one has yet to truly refute Rich, the sites creator.
the bible also says that he created time and there most likely have been people to change the bible he talks about it in revelations but they shall get there punishment aswell mann
 

Autism

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
466
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You have to get that the bible was written by man -- and man will have it's flaws. Man claimed to be inspired by an almighty creator. Also edited. The reasons why it can sometimes contradict itself is because to judge sin, god must go against his own word, or create twists in the universe. God's knowledge and intelligence via theism is infinite/omniscient, and humans cannot understand this. Lel.
 

Tobi98

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
7,146
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I have, plenty of times. Check out godandscience.org for debunking of every contradiction in the bible. No one has yet to truly refute Rich, the sites creator.
Then debunk this
You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images
 

sacmador

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
144
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I don't really think that can be determined. Not just anyone has rewritten the bible btw. Also, the quran came some 900 years after the bible and IIRC that was it's source of inspiration, but both are logical.
If the uncertainty is about Quran's originality, I can say that there are some old handwritten Qurans from like 1300-1350 years ago(First sentence came in year 610 and last is 632) which are consistent with each other and consistent with the ones who memorized all of it. Besides, apart from Quran what the Prophet said is so important too for us and those words the Prophet spoke of are written in some books by some well-known scholars with a chain of people who transferred the words from the first witness to others.

If it is about the uncertainty of Bible's originality, I don't know much but I can say that there are many Bibles written after the Prophet Jesus(Isa) died and 4 of them are accepted as canonical. So it is hard to say they are directly the Creator's words.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
375
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Everything, aside of the very own thinking (and perhaps mathematical truths) , is susceptible to debate (Descartes tried to prove the existence of God and consequently the existence of the Extended Substance, yet his arguments to prove the first one were most likely influenced by the religious organizations).

It is OK to be either theist, atheist or agnostic, since all of them require an act of faith to believe in.
 
Last edited:

Autism

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
466
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Then debunk this
You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images
First one: God must judge sin and by that he goes against his words. We cannot understand an omniscient.
Second: The bible does this many times. Do remember that each are different books.
Third: We should fear our creator, but love him as well. There is no fear in love doesn't justify. It's a paradox of it's own, really.
Fourth: Different books brah.
Fifth: Wasn't documented.



Debunk bible and science? Again, endless debate. Just stop.
 

Tobi98

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
7,146
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
First one: God must judge sin and by that he goes against his words. We cannot understand an omniscient.
Second: The bible does this many times. Do remember that each are different books.
Third: We should fear our creator, but love him as well. There is no fear in love doesn't justify. It's a paradox of it's own, really.
Fourth: Different books brah.
Fifth: Wasn't documented.



Debunk bible and science? Again, endless debate. Just stop.
1. Don't come with that "God works in mysterious ways" bullshit
2. If the Bible is the word of God than the books shouldn't have any contradiction, and the Genesis is the same book
3. Yeah I know it's a paradox that's why it can't be debunked
4. What I said before
5. Okay then

You're the best man. You always post the best/funniest memes/pics.
You must be registered for see images
 
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
375
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I have a question for you:

Do you believe in the existence Christian God with all the inmplications it has (such as cult and reverence)? Or:

Do you believe in the existence of an ordering entitiy related with the idea of infinite or perfection?
 

Autism

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
466
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
1. Don't come with that "God works in mysterious ways" bullshit
2. If the Bible is the word of God than the books shouldn't have any contradiction, and the Genesis is the same book
3. Yeah I know it's a paradox that's why it can't be debunked
4. What I said before
5. Okay then


You must be registered for see images
1. It's true, lmao. He's omniscient. We simply don't get him.
2. Written by man inspired by god and his word, has gods word itself contradicted itself? It's all hear-say.
3. These books were all written by different people between 300 B.C. and 300 AD.
4. What I said before
5. Lel.
OP, as an ex-mormon, what made you lose faith in the religion?
Cult. Stalked my house for years after I left. Joseph Smith was a very wicked man during his lifetime -- definitely inhuman.
 

Tobi98

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
7,146
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
1. It's true, lmao. He's omniscient. We simply don't get him.
2. Written by man inspired by god and his word, has gods word itself contradicted itself? It's all hear-say.
3. These books were all written by different people between 300 B.C. and 300 AD.
4. What I said before
5. Lel.
1. So you understand God when he does what we deem as good but when he does things that we deem as bad you can't understand him
The rest. If what's written in the Bible was written by humans and can easily be changed why do you follow?
 

Takure

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,261
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It is OK to be either theist, atheist or agnostic, since all of them require an act of faith to believe in.
Myth: "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."

Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.
 

Autism

Banned
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
466
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
1. So you understand God when he does what we deem as good but when he does things that we deem as bad you can't understand him
The rest. If what's written in the Bible was written by humans and can easily be changed why do you follow?
Because god gives us free will in my opinion, and views over us constantly. Why does god allow war, death, etc? We're all here to learn and experience. There's logical proof as why we're here behind the bible, stuff explained that wasn't explained years later, the holocaust predicted "... And gods people were helpless in his hands for 3 1/2 years." You think the massively produced bible can be changed now? Lol.

God is a perfect being, existing outside of the planes of existence, in 3 forms, and is perfectly happy, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and is in perfect contact with who he is. The complete opposite of us. We can't understand him. We can understand his word because it is in our language, but such can be misinterpreted.
 

Takure

Active member
Regular
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
1,261
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Because god gives us free will in my opinion, and views over us constantly. Why does god allow war, death, etc? We're all here to learn and experience. There's logical proof as why we're here behind the bible, stuff explained that wasn't explained years later, the holocaust predicted "... And gods people were helpless in his hands for 3 1/2 years." You think the massively produced bible can be changed now? Lol.

God is a perfect being, existing outside of the planes of existence, in 3 forms, and is perfectly happy, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and is in perfect contact with who he is. The complete opposite of us. We can't understand him. We can understand his word because it is in our language, but such can be misinterpreted.
You mean the devil? Because he was the one that tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of knowledge... which gave us our free will. We were abandoned by God, simply because we didn't know right from wrong. Since; humanity has been constantly punished for the sins of Adam and Eve. For a being outside of human understanding, he seems to be very spiteful and judging.

Though, I guess it makes sense that humans were created in God image. Look at how vile the majority of our species is.
 
Last edited:

sacmador

Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
144
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Myth: "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."

Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.
I want to add one more important point for these scientific aspects. Axioms.

Apart from definitions, almost at any stage, many claims and definitions itselves hold on to the axioms. For example, to say "a square circle exists", square and circle should be defined. When one looks at their definition, there will be many axioms behind them. At least, one must see what point is, and this is an axiom. When one looks at what axiom is, the definition will be "an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy". So one cannot prove or disprove an axiom, one can just accept an axiom.

So axioms are more important to me than definitions because they are the premises for the definitions. When thinking about the God or beliefs, there are many things which one can classify as axioms. Many adjectives to specify the God can be thought axiomatic. Omnicient, omnipotent... they are more axiomatic to me, because they are the words to describe the believed one. So when one tries to define the God, s/he will have to make some axioms. Then apart from the definition, one will need those axioms to try to prove or disprove excistency. At the end, there will be a logical complex system and as you say one may be able to prove or disprove the existency in that system not the others.

That's why finding a way by own your own is a very hard thing to do. So searching the already established ones may be the best way for someone who lost himself/herself in thinking these kinds of topics, and there is not just Christianity in this category.

Overall, finding the full logical systems similar to the scientific ways we know will be very hard to do for all the religions around the world which say the God exists and when one thinks that s/he found a contradiction in one of them, it doesn't mean the God's existency is disproven. So finding a way is really difficult. I just have an advice for all of you, don't forget to search Islam from its own sources not from the some terrorists causing chaos all over the world in the name of Islam.
 

~Sky~

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
6,872
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Myth: "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."

Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.
You just wasted a whole lot of words and time on a very simple concept. It's a bit hypocritical though. If you are using, as you say, "logical contradictions," to disprove something, then by your logic, a great many things (Beyond religion, science too) are not possible.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.
There are contradictions in both science and religion.

Evolution:

The Big Bang Theory:



Takes quite a lot of faith to believe in theories that are impossible.

I won't bother getting into the contradictions in religion. You seem to be the kind of person who only fishes for inconsistencies in one side of the circle and not the other. I bet you're well versed in religious contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.
A lot of word padding here. I get what you're trying to say, it's just comical how long-winded your explanations are.

All that you really needed to say here is that disproving something is dependent on the materials at your disposal.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists.
You seriously think "God," can be defined? If there is a God, said God would be beyond our understanding. Your quote before this disproves this quite adequately actually. Disproving something is dependent on the materials at your disposal. How can you disprove something that's very nature is beyond our Universe?

We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.
That couldn't be further from the truth. God, among other things, is defined as a being of love. How do you understand love if you do not understand hate?

Typical atheist ideology. You wouldn't understand jack about morality if you lived in a perfect world. In fact, can you, as an atheist, define a perfect world?

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.
Then read the Bible? Read the Quaran? Book of Mormon? You're asking for things that are laid out right in front of you. Maybe you should pull your head out of that dictionary and read up on the issues you're trying to delve into.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist"
Atheists claim "God does not exist," all the time.

and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.
Asking for proof in God shows cluelessness on the whole purpose of God. It's about belief, not proof. If you could prove it, the whole purpose of your life is in the tubes. Take a moment to think about the philosophical implications of what you're asking for for a second.
 
Top