"Atheism is a superstition."

[dafydd]

The Father is the First Cause. He Himself was never caused. Rather, He is the starting point of all things. (So say credible texts - which can be relied on, because they are credible. Also their claims are consistent with observable phenomena.)

No.

 

[PDoug]

The main mistaken assumption you're making is erroneously assuming that these things require an intelligence behind them for them to exist. Bottom line is: They don't.
Educate yourself on science before making caricature assumptions about the origin of things.

Do cups, cars, planes, and spacecraft not require intelligence to establish them? When animals establish nests, create traps, negotiate terrains, etc., don't they do these things via intelligence? Then why is it hard to believe that this pattern extends everywhere to all things - meaning that there is intelligence which governs the establishment and maintenance of rocks, stars, time, molecules, etc.? What I'm saying is not strange. It is the way people thought for thousands of years - before the notion that most everything is dead (except those things that are biological) and essentially that man is the only known intelligent being.

The current notion of a dead universe is just a belief. A decree about the way things are without proof. It makes more sense that the pattern we see among humans, animals, etc. extends to all things - just as we assume physical laws are the same beyond phenomena we can observe - than to introduce the notion of a dead universe, based on absolutely no evidence.

 

[PDoug]

Are you one of those people?

Yes.

 

[PDoug]

I see no evidence of this. How do you determine what is a legitimate faith or not, if not by the acts you already decided are due to such a faith ?

If you cannot qualify your statement, then I take it you concede my previous point.

The evidence of faith, is behavior which exhibit fundamentally, generally held notions of goodness - and does so in a consistent manner.

Not according to the old testament.

Yes, it's in the old testament, it's just not that obvious. E.g. the following scripture shows the female Holy Spirit speaking:

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gates leading into the city,
at the entrances, she cries aloud:

4 "To you, O men, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.

5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
you who are foolish, gain understanding.

6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;
I open my lips to speak what is right.

7 My mouth speaks what is true,
for my lips detest wickedness.

8 All the words of my mouth are just;
none of them is crooked or perverse.

9 To the discerning all of them are right;
they are faultless to those who have knowledge.

10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,

11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.

.

.

.

32 "Now then, my sons, listen to me;
blessed are those who keep my ways.

Sorry, but this does not follow. You seem to be building your premises from your conclusions.

If my conclusions are correct, then what is the issue?

I take that to mean that buddhism is more true than christianity.

True Christianity, true Judaism, true Buddhism, true Gnosticism and all other harmonious doctrines are one and the same.

 

[Mister Earl]

I don't believe in an omnipotent god partly because it's impossible. An omnipotent god must be omniscient. An omniscient god knows everything. Everything in the past, everything in the present, and everything in the future. Thus, god knows god's actions in the future. This makes even his actions predetermined, and means god has no free will. Thus, god can't be omnipotent because god would have no free will.

 

[hgc]

Yes.

I am also fundamentally good, but an atheist as well. So, you see, God beliefs are not necessary.

Do you have any reason to doubt the claim I just made?

 

[AdMan]

The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness, which can only be produced by beings consistent with the description of God.

What tripe.

Show us one person whom you can prove produces "a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness" and I'll buy it.

Otherwise, it's utter BS, and a fairy tale.

 

[qayak]

Do cups, cars, planes, and spacecraft not require intelligence to establish them? When animals establish nests, create traps, negotiate terrains, etc., don't they do these things via intelligence? Then why is it hard to believe that this pattern extends everywhere to all things - meaning that there is intelligence which governs the establishment and maintenance of rocks, stars, time, molecules, etc.? What I'm saying is not strange.

This is an old and throroughly debunked argument. If everything requires intelligence to create it and god created the universe, what intelligence created god? It is known as a falsidical paradox, that is, one of the premises is wrong.

Game, set, and match - reason.

 

[qayak]

Atheists claim there is no God, yet provide no proof that this is so.

You do understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, don't you? You also understand that not being able to prove a negative is not evidence for the positive, don't you?

So, no reasoned person expects to prove there is no god, it's not possible. No reasoned person believes that the inability to prove there is no god proves there is a god.

What reasoned people expect is for someone making a positive claim to prove it. And, with the positive claim that there is a god, reasoned people have been waiting thousands of years for that proof.

Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to find said proof and present it here . . . would make a great Mission Impossible movie, I think.

 

[Belz...]

The evidence of faith, is behavior which exhibit fundamentally, generally held notions of goodness - and does so in a consistent manner.

No. You are biased towards a particular conclusion. Faith doesn't lead to good behaviour.

Yes, it's in the old testament, it's just not that obvious.

You mean, it's hidden under tons of text depicting your god as an evil bastard ?

If my conclusions are correct, then what is the issue?

That's precisely the issue: your conclusion isn't correct because it's not built upon valid and sound premises.

True Christianity, true Judaism, true Buddhism, true Gnosticism and all other harmonious doctrines are one and the same.

That makes no sense. They are mutually exclusive.

You still haven't provided the evidence I asked for. Therefore I will now consider that you concede my point about the universe being uncaused.

 

[tsig]

Atheists claim there is no God, yet provide no proof that this is so. Yet all around us, we see the pattern of things requiring intelligence to establish and maintain them, and that more intelligence is required to establish more complex things. (We see this among humans, animals, plants, and invisible microorganisms.) So instead of atheists saying that it is likely the above observable pattern extends to all things everywhere (requiring a being matching the description of God establishing and maintaining our complex universe); atheists suggest that the pattern somehow does not extend everywhere, yet offer no proof that their contention is true.

Also atheists’ suggestion that the truth can be arrived merely through rational discourse, overlook the fact that pure rational discourse can only take place by beings who are themselves pure - because everything a being produces, is laced with his own qualities. This of course means that imperfect man can never arrive at the perfect truth.

If complex things require more complex things to explain them then a complex god needs a more complex god to explain him.

 

[skip]

Do cups, cars, planes, and spacecraft not require intelligence to establish them? When animals establish nests, create traps, negotiate terrains, etc., don't they do these things via intelligence? Then why is it hard to believe that this pattern extends everywhere to all things - meaning that there is intelligence which governs the establishment and maintenance of rocks, stars, time, molecules, etc.? What I'm saying is not strange. It is the way people thought for thousands of years - before the notion that most everything is dead (except those things that are biological) and essentially that man is the only known intelligent being.

The current notion of a dead universe is just a belief. A decree about the way things are without proof. It makes more sense that the pattern we see among humans, animals, etc. extends to all things - just as we assume physical laws are the same beyond phenomena we can observe - than to introduce the notion of a dead universe, based on absolutely no evidence.

Because things make things all things are made… You guys crack me up.

...

 

[dafydd]

True Christianity, true Judaism, true Buddhism, true Gnosticism and all other harmonious doctrines are one and the same.

Yep,total nonsense. We are in agreement.

 

[PDoug]

I don't believe in an omnipotent god partly because it's impossible. An omnipotent god must be omniscient. An omniscient god knows everything. Everything in the past, everything in the present, and everything in the future. Thus, god knows god's actions in the future. This makes even his actions predetermined, and means god has no free will. Thus, god can't be omnipotent because god would have no free will.

If God predetermines what will happen to all things, this means that God establishes that things will work out the way they do. This makes God not only subject to his design, but also the author / master of his design. How is this possible? Because God is many, but one - which is to say, God are many beings, that function as a single unit (like cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that each has its function, but which all work together as a single body.) Therefore the most elevated members of the godhead predetermine the way things are, and those below them and everything else, become subject to that predetermination.

 

[PDoug]

I am also fundamentally good, but an atheist as well. So, you see, God beliefs are not necessary.

Do you have any reason to doubt the claim I just made?

Yes. Because I've tried most everything to be righteous, and I've found the only thing that works, is to have legitimate faith. (I've observed the same in others as well.) Trying to do good directly does not work; trying to follow religious laws directly does not work either. Self help books do not work; positive thinking does not work. Believing in God directly, and in his salvation does not work. Again, the only think that works (in my observation), is the practice of asking God for things, and believing that you will receive them (Mark 11:22-24) - and trying to accomplishing things with this practice, through persistent prayer. Now the above may sound counter-intuitive, but my experience is that the above is actually so, and is consistent with the claims of the Bible, and harmonious scriptures.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.

Would but that I could touch the hem of your robe.

 

[PDoug]

What tripe.

Show us one person whom you can prove produces "a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness" and I'll buy it.

Otherwise, it's utter BS, and a fairy tale.

There is myself. There are also the prophets, apostles, and other righteous people listed in the Bible. What I'm proposing is testable, and anyone can have legitimate faith, and see for him / herself, that the thing actually works.

 

[PDoug]

Would but that I could touch the hem of your robe.

I wear pants.

 

[PDoug]

This is an old and throroughly debunked argument. If everything requires intelligence to create it and god created the universe, what intelligence created god? It is known as a falsidical paradox, that is, one of the premises is wrong.

Game, set, and match - reason.

The Father, in his most pure, elevated state, exists outside of creation, and is not subject to its observable laws. Therefore there is no requirement for Him, the First Cause, to have a precursor.

The Apocryphon of John

"4 And [I asked so that I might [know.

And he said] to me, "The Monad [is a mo]narch[y with]out any*thing existing over it. [It exists as the God] and Father of the [A]ll., the [invisi]ble which dwells above [the All, ...] imperishableness which exi[sts as the] pure light upon which it is not possible for any eye to] gaze.

[It is the] invisible [Spirit], and It is not appropriate [to consider It] to be like the g[o]ds or that It is something similar. For It is more than divine, [without anything] existing over It. For nothing lords [over It].

[. . .] not [...] in an[yth]ing less [... exists in It.

It alone [is eternal] since It does not need [anything.] For It is totally perfect. [It] does not [lack] anything such that [anything] would perfect It, [but] It is [al]ways completely perfect in [light]. It can*not be [limi]ted because there is nothing [before It] to limit It. [It is] inscrut[able because there] is no one who exists before It [to scrutinine It.] [It is im]measurable because there is nothing [which exists before It to measure] It. [It is] in[visible because there is] no one to see [It. It is an eternity existing] eternally. [It is ineffable because] there is no one able to comprehend It in order to sp[eak about It.] It is [un]nameable because [there is no one before It] to name [It.] It is [the immeasurable light,] which is pure, [holy, and unpolluted. It is in]effable [being perfect i]n incorruptibility. (It does) [not] (exist) in per[fection], blessed[ness, or] divini[ty] but It is [far] supe*rior (to these).

It is neither corporeal [nor in]corporeal. [It] is not large or small. [It is not] such that one could [say] that It has quantity or [quality]. For it is not possible for anyone [to know It]. It is not something among [existing things, but It is] far [super]ior—[not] as [being supe*rior] (to others as though It is comparable to them) but as that which belongs to Itself. It does [not partici]pate in the aeons or in time (as a constitutive part of them). For that which participates i[n an aeon] was first prepared (by others). It was [not given a p]ortion in time [because] It does not receive anything [from anoth]er- for [what*ever] It received would be received as a loan. For what exists prior] to anything else is not deficient such that It should receive [from any*thing].

For this one gazes marveling at Itself [alone] in Its light. [...] For It is a vastness. [It possesses the immeasurable [simpli]city. [It is] an aeo[n gi]ving aeon, life giving [life, a ble]ssed one giving blessedness, a knowledge giving understanding, a goo[d one giving] goodness. It is mer[cy giving] mercy and salvation. It is grace giving grac[e—not] such that it possesses it but that It gives. "

 

[PDoug]

You do understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, don't you? You also understand that not being able to prove a negative is not evidence for the positive, don't you?

I can prove I didn't commit a crime by supplying an alibi. I can also show that the laws of the universe are such, that they do or do not support a particular claim. So there are in fact ways to prove, at least, certain negatives.

So, no reasoned person expects to prove there is no god, it's not possible. No reasoned person believes that the inability to prove there is no god proves there is a god.

If you cannot prove there is no God, then how can you claim there is no God? All you can do is state that you believe there is no God, making atheism, a belief system.

What reasoned people expect is for someone making a positive claim to prove it. And, with the positive claim that there is a god, reasoned people have been waiting thousands of years for that proof.

Your job, should you decide to accept it, is to find said proof and present it here . . . would make a great Mission Impossible movie, I think.

See here and here.