Yes, it is. Romans 57: 13.

babaearly:

Really stupid reasoning.

Really if you dont believe in Jesus, then how do you know he was the one who caused the Flood?

I don't have to believe in it to check for its internal consistency. Do you have to believe in the claims of Mohammed to check or know that his claims are bogus?

Your religion/belief tells you that Jesus caused the flood. Is is a fact that Jesus caused a flood which killed everyone on earth except for Noah's family?

gen2genius:

Two questions for you Huxley.

1 - Do you have CONCRETE proofs that there were "tiny little babies" among those who were destroyed? I know it can be assumed but don't base your accusations on assumptions. It's ILLOGICAL!

2. If there was a weather report that there would be  a heavy rainfall in a particular city this afternoon, and a mother witlessly took her baby out without an umbrella and when the downpour began, both the mother and child were drenched and both caught pneumonia. Who would you blame. God? 

As I said earlier, think well before allowing bigotry to push you into posting rubbish!

1)  It is reasonable to assume that in any population of people, there will be people of all age range, and gender, especially if said population is the entire world population.  Can you provide some reasons why this assumption is unjustified?


If your reasons seem valid, I shall withdraw my charges against Jesus/God.

gen2genius:

Abuzola, shame on you. So you called Jesus whom you claim is one of your prophets a murderer?

Tudor and Huxley, sometimes your way of reasoning amazes appalls me. If God tells you not to put your hand into a fire and you do and get burnt, is it reasonable to put the blame on him? Are you so gullible and bigoted? God sent Noah to the people to warn them of an impending deluge and he provided a way of escape for as many as would be wise. He told Noah to construct a mighty Ark and gave him the exact specifications. Can you guess how many years it would take to build such an ark? It was that same length of time that God gave to the people to consider the warning. As Noah was building, he continued to warn the people and they continued to mock him, just like many people today, especially, atheists mock God and his words. Some even said they wanted to see how such a thing could happen. And it did happen. So, how's God a murderer?

God is a loving a patient God. Unfortunately, human beings like you take these wonderful attributes of his for granted. Take the case of the people of Sodom too. The angels warned and Lot too warned and warned but the people kept mocking until the predicted judgement came to pass. Even the Israelites were not spared each time they despised God's words.

And see what happens in our present generation - the ubiquitous spread of evil and perversion; the utter disregard for God and his word, and yet God continues to warn and forbear. And as usual, the foolish people who will NEVER learn from history continue to revel in depravity and mockery of God. So, what excuse or accusation will any of you have against God at last?

Let me give you three different accounts that buttress my explanations. PLEASE take time to go through them 'cos they're cogent and not lengthy:

From Jesus (warning the people of this generation in advance):

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26-29)

Also from Jude:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

And from Peter:

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (sluggish) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:1-9).

Still, people won't listen. So how's God a 'murderer' in this context. Why should God be blamed for man's self-inflicted foolishness and woes?

 

How about all the tiny little babies? The day old, two-days old, the 1 year old? How about the babies in ther mother tummy? What chance did they have? What warning did god sent to them? Did they have a chance to repent.

Pastor AIO:

My brother, everything exists only in minds!

Back to this old canard, are we? Does your mind exist? Has your mind got a mind of its own? Or in whose mind does your mind exist in?

Pastor AIO:

Let's not conflate Numbers and Numerals.  Numbers exist in pre-literate societies but not numerals.  

Yes, of course.  I was writing in response to the poster who thought that what you see in textbooks are numbers - they are not numbers, but representation of numbers or numerals.

Of course, numbers exist in pre-literate societies.  In fact, numbers exists ONLY in minds, in the minds of conscious (sentient) beings.

What do you think?   Do you think numbers existed 10 billion years ago, given our current knowledge about life in the universe?

henrykent:

hello,do u really want to interact with numbers?then go pick up your primary one reader for maths,and seriously dedicate your time in it,i swear one number will definitely jump out,don't try that,its psycho,

CAn you tell us when numbers came into existence?    What you see in the textbooks are representation of numbers, NOT numbers in themselves.   Think about it this way - do numbers exist in a non-literate societies?  Did numbers exist 20000 years ago before the invention of writing?

In fact, the representation of numbers (as in 1, 2, 9, etc) is no different from the drawing of a unicorn. The fact that you can represent it graphically does not mean it exists in real life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND44ZR5CKE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7JzSYnSG9s&feature=related

May kelly:

Worst than what i even though of. complete Ignorance! i don't need a fool's reply pls.

Who kill all the people with the flood?

Watch this girl pray herself to a fit and then her gang having to call an ambulance rather than rely on the "healing powers" of Jesus. here

May kelly:

your totally sick in the head, how dare u! stupid topic caption. . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Did Jesus not kill pregnant women, babies, infants and animals in the Noah flood? Or have you not read you bible?

Chrisbenogor:

@Prizm
And just because I am still pissed at your arguments, after looking at it again,
First, it's obviously not an argument for God or any kind of creator.  It's just an argument for the universe only having some cause which you theists have twisted to fit your own dilemma . Proving that god is that cause would actually be much more difficult, which is why you have not. But wait in second thoughts you are actually very correct
Premise : God does not begin to exist
Conclusion: Since God never began to exist, God does not exist  

Yes, the Cosmological Argument is, at best, an argument for deism, NOT for theism.  To go from a cosmic designer to a personal god is a huge leap.  The only way this gap could be bridged is by marshalling other arguments. So in essense the theists have to put together a collection of arguments which singly are not as powerful, but collectively they [b]claim [/b]to be strong.

Surprise, surprise.  This is exactly the same way that atheist argue against all the gods - no single argument is a knock-down argument, but collectively the arguments against gods makes it less probable for such beings to exist.

Prizm:

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

The disreputable Cosmological Argument, the workhorse of William Lane Craig, who calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument. First off, this arguments suffers from a number of unjustified assertion:

1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

I was really looking forward to some really good debate with some upstarts, then the mods went and sploit the party? What a shame!

Did Jesus once kill all the [b]little babies, pregnant women and their foetuses, infants and innocent animals [/b]all in one global catastrophic incident?

noetic2:

There has been no superior argument as of yet. . . . .or has there been?

We know your hardness of comprehension is legendary - my question was; can those premises be justified? Rather than - what is the quality of those premises?

This is a spill over from another thread (Has Atheism Taken over NL) which seems to have fallen out of favour with the mods. I was going to post the following responds but found it had been blocked by the mods:

Prizm:

It is hard to make out what you are exactly arguing for here. The only thing I can simply say in reply is this:

"God does not BEGIN to exist" Take some time and digest this. Numbers for example do not BEGIN to exist. They exist whether or not there is a universe or not; they exist whether there are life-permitting universes elsewhere or a gallery of hypothetical or life-prohibiting universes; they exist whether there are human beings to conceptualize them or not.

What this clearly means is that to think that the Cosmological Argument invites an "infinite regress" is to have misunderstood the argument. Sure a regress is possible, but that regress cannot be infinite or there cannot be anything currently existing.

The disreputable Cosmological Argument, the workhorse of William Lane Craig, who calls it the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  First off, this arguments suffers from a number of unjustified assertion:

1) Anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause.

2) God did NOT begin to exist.

Why are we supposed to accept these premises?

The question of God's ontology was also discussed on the other thread, in which I pressed the theists to define or provide for consideration the ontology of their god(s).  I asked;

                        [size=16pt]How could one justify argument for an entity when the nature of that entity has not been settle?
[/size]

noetic2:

what thread?. . , u probably were not making sense. . . .

Why don't you try posting on the Has Atheism Taken Over NL thread?

Has Atheist Taken Over NL? .   Yes, just when it was getting interesting, you went and blocked it. WHY?

Prizm:

I don't know what you are talking about here.

No one is forcing you to come and discuss or debate here. You came here on your own accord and you have your set of ideas or opinions on the subject. It means that if you want to participate in the discussion, you have to familiarize yourself with the topic. If you are not familiar with what the discussion is, then sit it out and let honest people discuss the issues. This is like watching people discussing a sufficiently complex topic like say "Wave-Particle Duality of Matter and Energy", then jumping in from left field to demand of the serious discussants a definition for matter or energy. I am not to be saddled with the task of helping you out on that score; so I have no need to "justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute."

Again, let me spell it out for you: You know what side of the discussion "theism(God) vs atheism(No God)" that mirrors your worldview, and you know the reasons why you favor that worldview. If you want to be part of any fruitful discussion here, start by making a positive claim for your side of the discussion. Yes, you can start out by making your own logical case which would be examined. You don't get to sit on some form of 'judgment panel" to arbitrate on what makes sense to your own strict naturalistic worldview.

If your contention is that you do not understand what is being discussed, then kindly sit it out.

Hello Prizm,

Whether I am familiar with the topic or not is irrelevant.  I think there is a lot to be said for some originality in debates - I don't need to go read up on all what our predecessor have had to say on the subject to be considered a worthy opponent in a debate.  I want my own words and arguments to speak for themselves.  I would rather both of us evaluate the substance of our arguments rather than necessarily rely on what others have said.  Now, what is wrong with that approach?


The point I was making is the following:

Given that you have presented such arguments as the cosmological, ontological arguments, I assumed you have a strong inclination to argue from a strongly a priori philosophical position - something which I greatly commend.  That said, how would you justify arguing for/against something when the nature of that something is not been settle?


Note that I am not asking you to define that something here.  My question is rather a methodological one - in other words, what is the reasonableness in arguing at all when we do not know what we are arguing about?   If you think you know what it is, please tell us what it is!

Prizm:

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against.

Yes, I do not know what God is. If history is any thing to go by, there have been more than 10,000 gods venerated bu humans - and today there are probably no less than 1000 gods worldwide that still form part of the human pantheone of gods. So I (and all the other atheists) are justified in asking you to define your god. For all we know, you god might very well exist, but how can I tell it from the god of the muslims, hindus, eskimos, etc.

It is obvious that you have boned up on some philosophical arguments for the existence of some god(s), which is a very noble intellectual act and I highly commended you for that. In a similar vein, I would like to ask you to use you philosophical bent to justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute. So to summarise;


Given your strong philosophical inclination, can you provide some philosophical justification for arguing for or against an entity whose very nature is undefined.

Pastor AIO:

Ouch!!  And I thought I had a harsh rhetoric.  

But I had the feeling that Huxley would sooner or later walk into this. It's like he's headbutted the guy's fist with his nose.  

OK,  let me start with this one.  Yes, Pastor you are absolutely right - this is harsh rhetoric, a far cry from the philosophical search for truth. As it happens, I am not fazed by such rhetoric.

B.T.W, mixed metaphors are not very good form, as in the highlighted bit above.

Pastor AIO:

Is that your definition of belief? Mine is much simpler. A belief is something that is accepted as true. One can either belief in the Theory of Gravity (Newton's or Einstein's, take your pick) or Not. I'll need you to better articulate what you see as the difference between Belief and Acceptance as True.

I do not believe in any theory of gravity though I accept that the various theories of gravity are useful for understanding many phenomena that I experience.

I do not believe in any Concept of God though I accept that the various concepts have their uses in understanding many phenomena that have occurred.

Think about it this way:

Do you not believe in the theory of gravity in the same way that you do not believe in Allah (or Sango, or Sussicorn)?

Do you believe in dark matter or dark energy?

chukwudi44:

Tudor since you dont beleive in evolution then,what do you think brought the earth and humanity into existence, give us your own tudor theory.

Evolution or the Theory of Evolution is NOT something one believes in. Scientific theories or facts are NOT amenable for belief. You can either accept, reject or defer acceptance of scientific theories.

Think about it this way - do you belief in gravity or the theory of gravity?

Belief are rightly attributable to metaphysical or philosophical propositions or doctrines, like the following;

1) I believe in justice for all
2) I believe in democracy
3) I believe in Sussicorn

Prizm:

First of all, you have to disabuse yourself of the idea that thinking rationally is possible only by being wedded to a worldview anchored on a strict naturalistic framework. Secondly, that entire statement you just made is False. The philosophical arguments on the existence of God do not rely on scriptures or what you have chosen to deride as "the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god". Two of such arguments are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. If you are not conversant with these arguments, then go read up on them. If you are familiar with them and you have a sound logical refutation, then let us hear it. If you come back with other empty assertions of self-worth then I am not obliged to respond to you. Let your much-vaunted superior arguments speak for you. We are all here to learn from each other, right?

This is just another empty assertion. On what basis or proof do you assert that "proof whether 'deductive' or 'inductive' should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof"? How do you know that this statement you just made is true? Does that assertion have any concrete materialistic/naturalistic explanation or evidence? The answer is NO.

At any rate, you are mistaken if you assume I am going to be locked into some unfruitful, unsophisticated back-and-forths on the topic. This issue calls for serious mentation--it is not an opportunity for jejune point scoring. For example, what do you mean when you ask for a "concrete" evidence of God? Are you asking to be shown something that has matter and could be called God? What sort of "concrete" evidence are you looking for? Let us hope you are not asking to be shown a logical contradiction i.e a material/empirical evidence for a God concept which by definition is spaceless or boundless; infinitely pre-existent or eternal in the past and future; immaterial or incorporeal; and ultimately omnipotent. It will be like asking for me to show you a square circle or a married bachelor. So, once again, tackle the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and tender your logical/rational refutations if you have any. This is not time for cheap rhetoric. You can do the honorable thing however and declare beforehand that you are not prepared to contemplate non-naturalistic alternatives and spare us a lot of time.


Yeah, but what sort of evidence is a naturalist going to accept or believe anyway? If you start ab initio [/i]and decree by fiat that you'll only be persuaded or convinced by naturalistic explanations then there is no need for us to waste our time here. It is astounding that anyone has to spell out to you that there cannot be any naturalistic explanations for non-naturalistic phenomena. Besides, any statement to the effect that [i]"naturalistic/empirical explanations are all that we have to accept when examining truth claims" collapses if one were to ask how such a statement/truth claim can be shown to be true. Such a statement cannot be empirically proven or explained by naturalistic means. This is going to sound like mumbo jumbo until you actually start thinking a little deeper on the subject. This discussion is not a popularity contest where trite and specious replies are tendered for the purpose of some cyber one-upmanship. I want to believe there are serious and honest theists, agnostics and atheists alike who really want to exchange ideas in a meaningful way.

Nice try. I am not going to accept that you have no burden of proof if you want to describe yourself as an atheist. Theists who believe in the existence of a God AND Atheists who believe in the non-existence of a God have to present their positive evidence for that stance. This means that it is logically fallacious to claim without good evidence for your own position, that the inability of the opposition to adequately explain their own truth claims counts as a logically necessary proof of your own claim. It means that both sides could be wrong.

For example: Side A claims that a certain watch found at an excavation site was designed by some intelligence and Side B claims that the watch was not designed but can be explained as the product of blind chance. Side A and B have a burden on them to present positive arguments for their case. Side B cannot just sit back and declare victory because Side A may not be able to explain how watches are designed, nor indeed who the designer of that watch is.

If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing those philosophical arguments for the existence of God. What you have to do is tear down those arguments and erect positive atheistic or naturalistic alternatives of your own. This calls for you to engage your brain. No one here is duty-bound to furnish you with any proof or evidence that you can cavalierly denounce to your heart's content. Funny that you seem to think that anyone is trying to secure your approval for what constitutes proof. If you don't see that in any discussion for the existence or non-existence of God that Atheists and Theists have to present their own case, then there is no need for any sort of discussion. Theists can happily believe in God; atheists can happily disbelieve in God--and no side is committed to showing the other why their stance is the more plausible or rational.

Cheers!

What is God? Please, tell us first what God is and how you come to know about him. Then we can begin to work out arguments for/against his existence. Without that we would be groping in the dark.

All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn. So should we believe in Sussicorn?

Prizm:

Sometimes people who call themselves atheists like to pretend that they are backed by superior arguments or reason when many times it is just emotionalism, or some really shallow and infantile reasoning at best. If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing some of the arguments. In the end, any sincere atheist may not believe in God, but honest enquiry will cause him/her to reflect deeply; it may even cause strong and staunch atheists to become agnostics of some sort. The problem I notice with this response is the failure to contemplate what the nature of proof can be.

For example, to anyone given to a naturalistic explanation, there is no guarantee that disbelief in God will disappear if they truly encounter supernatural occurrences. A naturalist has to start out with the basic framework or worldview that all explanations are naturalistic or at best, not fully yet understood. Be that as it may, you are free to believe whatever you want as I am not indebted to 'prove" anything to you. Why? It allows you to sit your happy behind back in some comfortable chair and squabble with any propositions. Perhaps it is better to ask you to start showing the logical basis for your very own disbelief or unbelief.

To prove that something does exist, don't you thing we first need to know what it is we are seeking to prove, ie, the thing's ontology. Have you got a positive, objective and non-contradictory first-order ontology for GOD? Give us God's ontology - then we shall decide whether such amounts to the ontology of an existent entity.

noetic2:

muslims dont worship God. . . . .or do they?

we all know that they worship an arabian idol called allah.

How then do you explain cases where muslims have reported having their prayers answered when they have prayed to their god.

When they have been ill, they have prayed to Allah for healing and he has responded positively

When they have been in other difficulties, Allah has proved to be responsive to them.

So Allah must also be the living god who answers their prayers.

What do you consider to the the most wicked act capable of being committed by ANYONE? Modern society considers acts such as slavery, ethnic cleansing, wanton murder, human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape and other forms of assualt, torture, etc, etc, etc, as some of the most wicked acts humans can commit.

Can you think of any that are worst than the above? Can you think of such wicked acts that have NOT been committed by the God of the Old Testament, who is also Jesus?

Try this one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15951427/George-Smith-Atheism-The-Case-Against-God but you gonna have to read as is as it is not a pdf.

Krayola2:

@ huxley. . .the link doesn't work

Unfortunately, they have put some sort of restrictions on the server. I had the pdf somewhere but would take me a while to locate.