The GREAT god debate.... a discussion that WILL make you an atheist/agnostic

Mind if I jump in? How does modern science point to the idea that the universe has always been? Heard of Kalam's cosmological argument? The universe cannot have existed for an infinite length of time, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy within a system can decrease in quality. If the universe has always been, it would have 'run down' long ago, as it is a closed system. The rest of the points fall apart without this premise. Furthermore, I don't see how you go from A to D1. As to D2 and E, God has always been. But before you say that I am contradicting myself, He is not bound by time, as time began at creation. As to free will - God has given us a destiny, but you can easily choose not to fulfill yours. If you refuse to be His gear, He already knows what will happen as a result, and can easily raise up another person to do it. It is YOUR loss. And worship and prayer are for our benefit - God wants us to learn how to go to Him for our needs. I also do not see how you conclude E. As for "the best way to prove atheism is through logic and science and observable reality" - how does logic and science and observable reality prove atheism in the first place? All websites are biased. They're written by people. Some websites are more biased than others, but people cannot help but read their own presuppositions into whatever they're doing. Firstly, how do you conclude that Horus and Mithra are the 'sons of God'? And God is big, yes, and omnipotent, yes - somehow this keeps Him from coming to earth in human flesh? I don't really see how you conclude 3 - you haven't shown why God should be above logic if He exists. Above science, and how the world normally works, maybe. But that is not the same thing. This is the great God debate, after all, and now it's your turn.

Yeah...sure...you must give thanks to me as it took me for 45 minutes to finished up reading thoroughly on your texts and the link's page with no earnings. But it's paid by interesting and open up one's mind to freely express their belief in God and firmly stand with one's belonging. Talking about God will never end and always adjourned with assumptions and not conclusion. Why? Because the existence of God is just like an energy, neither created nor destroyed. And having said, in one's mind and phenomenolism. If you say YES, there...the existence of God for you. But if you say NO.....God does not exist for you.

Sorry, but I haven't got the time or inclination to wade for ages through the text of people who are shooting their mouth off and saying nothing new. Logic supports the existance of Jesus as who He said He was lock, stock and barrel, resurrection included. Biblical prophecy is impossible to argue against logically, as is the dramatic change in people's lives that I see daily. No-one will ever be able to intellectualise away God. Give up even trying.

Well, I waded through the whole discussion, and I'm still the same polytheist I've always been. No amount of argument from anyone is going to change what I believe, because what I believe is what I have seen to work in my own life. That to me has more weight than any number of arguments from people on the internet.

Here are my views on the subject: God is our Creator and He is very real, and Jesus Christ is the only Son of the Living God.

no need for arguments.God is so real in our world today.He is in control.those who accept and believe Jesus Christ as their Lord and saviour over their life will have eternal life.those who dont will have go to hell.so we better choose now whom we will believe and serve.

Say whatever you want. There's no way you'll change my beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else who is strong in their convictions. There are billions of people in this world, and probably a billion different belief systems. Have faith in what you believe in and no one else will be able to change your mind. Only you have that power.

As far as I can see, there is an error in your premise that there is no freewill. I follow every argument made up to that point. We have acknowledged a potentially omnipotent creator who creates man with a purpose, but this being who can create life cannot allow that life to have freewill??? You have not made a good argument in support of this statement, and until you do, there is a massive loophole in your claim that you have somehow disproved God...

First let me say that the Universe has not always be there. The Universe was created from the explosion of a black hole. After the explosion... the Universe expanded through the speed velocity of the explosion. When that speed becomes zero... the original black hole start sucking the Universe back in. And the process begin again with the creation of a new Universe. Only a few months ago... scientists were able to take an infra-red picture of the whole Universe. Which put an end to the fairy that the Universe is limitless. For all we know... there could be several Universes... just like we have several galaxies. There is a God in our Universe. And he has a name. His name is "NATURE". It is nature which create life and rule our life. Without nature... there is no life. Nature gives us the freedom to enjoy our life and do whatever we feel like with it... as long as we don't attempt to change nature. When you do... like the climate change we experience now... Nature will wipe us out. Nature is the most powerful God there is. It rules the Universe... and particulary life on planet Earth. Religion is man made and has nothing to do with God. Religions are cults to give people something to believe in. Some people cannot cope with life without religion. They need the assurance that there is a reason for everything and that their life is not worthless. But religion was mostly created to set a list of moralistic rules in order to civilize man. If we had no religion... we would live like wild animals... just like the first cave men. Without religion... you have anarchy. I think people can still be religious and believe in their cult God... while at the same time... facing the real fact that their true God is Nature.

Gee! you're a genius! but i cannot totally see your brain! i cannot even felt it, nor smelt it, taste it..or hear it! I cannot prove that your brain existed unless i cut it out...jokes. Bottom line...i never actually read your article because it is too wordy. I am agnostic i guess, If God cannot be proven by science, then let it be...if God Cannot be proven by Religion, then let be...in short if God cannot be proven by MAN let it be.... God is GOD, if you are able to prove his existence...then you are putting Him in the box....therefore you are making him measureable......ah ah ah ah this is bending the definition of an immeasurable GOD. Nobody could prove his existence because He is GOD. Only God can prove themselves....if you are God yourself, do you exist?

Hi Fighting, Sorry it took me two months to get back to you, but I told you I was going to be busy. :) Here, at long last, is my response......... 'A) modern sciences and physics states all point to the idea that the universe itself has always been, and always will be, much like god itself, and time.' --Actually, observations in physics (most frequently associated with the Big Bang theory), suggest that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old (give or take 200 million years). 'D)on the other hand, we could state that there is some sort of intelligent creator... which we will call X. D1)according to A, this being would not be omnipotent and would always exist.' --D1)If you take a quick glance at my answer to A, we are of the understanding that the universe has not existed eternally. According to theology, God himself has no beginning, nor end (alpha and omega; first and last). Obviously, this poses a conflict with Classical physics, in which the only tools for measurement are the three physical dimensions, and time itself, being the fourth. If we are to make any attempt to pull an omnipotent, Almighty God down to our own finite reasoning, this attempt can only begin with quantum mechanics, which still consists largely of estimates. "Theories such as string theory and M-theory predict that the space in general has in fact 10 or 11 dimensions, respectively, but that the universe, when measured along these additional dimensions, is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size. We as humans can only perceive up to the third dimension while we have knowledge of our travel through the fourth. We cannot, however, see anything past the fourth." (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Human resources in scholarly, scientific discovery are poor. Some of our oldest surviving resources date back to the ancient greeks, possibly along the descendant lines of Plato (epistemology), and Socrates, his mentor (if Socrates actually existed). We also have mathematics, which are thousands of years older. But as far as we have come, from basic arithmetic to calculous and modern studies in quantum mechanics (since 1838), studied here on planet Earth and a little on Mars (and telescopically, of course [My grandfather worked at LMSC, now LMMSC for 34 years; his team built the "little black box" which controls the solar arrays on HST.]), methinks we're a far cry from beginning to grasp the terrific complexity of the vastness around us, and that which brought it into being. 'D2)according to A-D, the best answer to who created this creator is, again, another creator... X2.' --Until we've figured out the answer to D1, which I don't think is going to happen in my lifetime, I'm not going to try probing this one. The first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." 'E)so, according to everything from A-D2, we realize that D does not really make sense because of A.' --Again, see my answer to A. 'so, either the universe has always been, or this X has always been and is omnipotent. but the thing is, even if he has always been omnipotent, since he is a conscious being, we would need to prove his existence as well!' --Maybe YOU "need" to prove His existence, but WE do not. The only one who needs to know ALL is the one who is responsible for holding this universe together. 'E2) i will use a[famous theist] example. if we are on a mountain and we see a rock, we don't need to ask why it is there, but if we see a working watch, we need to explain how it got there. now ofcourse, the main purpose of this example is to show that there is a creator for the created. this goes for the omnipotent conscious all knowing being as well.' --I'm assuming you're talking about William Paley. If so, you're leaving out his argument that follows: "Likewise, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator." And besides, as far as we humans are concerned, it's a matter of opinion whether or not the rock itself is also a "created" thing. I am of the understanding that God "gave of Himself" to create even the cosmos themselves. Perhaps you know that when energy is spent, it doesn't disappear into oblivion; it simply takes on another form. Just as you can't turn something into nothing (you can only break it down), you cannot create something out of thin air. Who (or what) created the organic materials themselves? 'F) so, out all these conclusions, we realize that the most logical explanation is indeed the idea of life through chance And the idea that the universe is eternal. for if you have eternity to find a needle in a haystack, or a thousand needles in a thousand haystacks for that matter, you will eventually find the needle[s].' --Again, see my answer to A. From there, and taking into account how difficult it is to achieve right-handed amino acids, let alone the 90 to 100 proteins that must have been required by the first life form to sustain itself, time hardly matters anyway. If and when you do achieve a chemical reaction, it will likely produce either waste, or an explosion. This serves only to pull you ever further from your goal. And, even if all the matter in the universe was constantly at work over some 12-14 billion years to achieve the abiogenesis that you desire, chances are still, essentially, zero. Here's some more material for your reading pleasure: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/abiogenesis.html Maybe you would like a shot at that $1,000,000 reward for evidence of abiogenesis, or $2,000 for evolution (I don't disbelieve in evolution, just so you know). :P 'now, lets for a moment imagine that we do not need to explain how and why this omnipotent god is there, and lets assume that he is there. how would that change our view on the world? A) there will, be, a sort of "absolute truth" about the world... it does not matter what you believe to be true, or what i believe to be true, there is always one truth... now, absolute truth can stand on its own without an omnipotent being, but, however, it does suggest that this being does exist. absolute truth suggests that there is a god, but it does not prove it.' --How do you get to the turnaround where "absolute truth can stand on its own without an omnipotent being?" For all you and I know, this universe could just as soon be completely empty. No physical matter, no intelligent being to make something out of it...nada. The watch did not create itself, and in my opinion, neither did this universe. Why not? I don't know how immortal beings think, and I don't think you do either (if you did, you couldn't be an atheist), but I don't see how a lack of necessity completely obviates the possibility. If all the matter in this universe went out of its way to make something happen, what was the reason behind that? Gravity? I think not, else all the matter in the universe would just comprise one large body. Any way you slice it, life happened. "I think, therefore, I am." We've long since established that we don't necessarily NEED to be here, but we're still here. Maybe an omnipotent God, whom you (a created human) are trying to limit to what it necessary and what is not, actually has the capacity to do something He WANTS to do. 'C) there would be no free will, we would be gears in a machine that god needs for his own use. (this is the biggest problem i have with someone else handing over a purpose for me). we could either say that since god gave us a purpose, which is, indeed, our destiny, destiny and free will cannot co-exist, and even if they did, all the paths we choose would lead to the same inevitable outcome.' --This could go either way, but I, for one, am not afraid of humility. If you are, perhaps I could make it easier for you. A friend of mine once said, "The purpose of life is to live." As far as destiny is concerned, I am not convinced either way. What I will say is I have seen things happen that "coincidence" is less than adequate to describe, often a chain of events that leads to something. I call it "providence," and that remains the adhesive that binds me to my faith. I convinced myself initially that God existed; now He gives me an occasional reminder that he does. And it belongs to me; if you want revelation of God, you need to ask Him, not another person. That's what my first pastor told me to do when I told him I was agnostic, and what do you know? It worked. 'D) worship and prayer become useless because there is no free will and god knows all.' --You seem to assume that prayer is way of swaying God. I don't look at it that way. God is not a genie; He does not answer every prayer I pray, or at least not as I would imagine it. But is it not reasonable to assume that God knows what's best for me better than I do? He made me. He knows every hair on my head; He knows what I'm made of, what I'm allergic to...etc. As far as worship itself being useless, I find that short-sighted and almost blasphemic in its very nature, sorry to say. God is my King, not vice versa. He is NOT here to serve me. I worship Him because I am thankful to Him for everything I am, and everything I have. If you don't see a reason to be thankful that you're alive, then what do you REALLY think of yourself? Do you think you're a waste of life? I don't. 'E) all religions would be considered as man made and this god could not be understood by anyone..' --All religions ARE man-made; there is no dispute about that. It's also not the point. If salvation in eternal life is what you're getting at, I don't believe there is a mathematical formula for salvation. There's more than one path, methinks. Most western, monotheistic religions tend to suggest that our Creator wants to reconcile us to Him/Her/It. If this were so, do you think this would be complexified to the point of being virtually impossible? N

Your born, you live, you die and its all over with. People just can't live with the concept that they are no different than a chicken or a raccoon. When its over, it is done with and all the lip flapping and blather in the world will not make imaginary beings real. But it will bring my star rating down.

Sorry to disappoint you fighting, but I'm still not an atheist, in fact I find it difficult to understand how anyone can be.

I agree with you totaly. here is my blog about some of the things I wonder about in the bible this is my first blog. http:/thingsthatmakemewonder.blogspot.com/ there is stuff that i would like to add like when i state about the years that Jesus is not in the bible I THINK (this is my conclusion nobody elses) That jesus was a very knowledge hungery person (for example when he was going to his "fathers house" to learn) so for these years I believe that Jesus was traveling the world learning hence the reason some of his things sound like what Buddha would say. I also say that people all through time tried to look in people that did outstanding things as gods (for example Alexander The Great, Buddha {not a god but close} Jesus, and many others). So that would be a reason that Jesus would be looked at as a God (son of God, same thing) and the reason it stuck is b/c the Cathlioc Church at that moment in history destoryed anything that disagreed with it.