tintingz:


You said the spiritual snake should not swallow the money because the money is cursed then i asked is the snake holy?

TheArranger:

Can you just stop with the pointless strawman mining? Where in this thread, did I assert the bolded? I find it funny that you imply atheists to be dogmatic when you have continuously twisted logic and refused to concede an inch of ground yourself. I haven't taken any sides. It may be one or the other. Claiming one position bestows upon you the burden of proof. Are you beginning to see the futility of your situation? Let's try this again.

ATTEMPT NUMBER 3:
How do you know that logic, thermodynamics and entropy apply outside the universe...?

shadeyinka2:

I simply asked you a question as a response. Your answer is within your answer.

Since you feel they don't apply outside our universe, why do you require them as EVIDENCE to believe in the First Cause?

XxSabrinaxX:

The poor sap doesn't realize how ridiculous he truly sounds. Any viewing of a post by shadeyinka would fit in nicely with the Warner Bros' Looney Tunes theme song playing in the background .

TheArranger:

Your "question" is based on the assumption that I don't believe those concepts to be possible beyond our observable universable. This is where you commit the strawman fallacy. Let it sink into your head: I HAVEN'T TAKE ANY SIDES. Read my posts carefully. Your "question" is painfully invalid. Now, let's try again. Maybe fourth time's the charm,

ATTEMPT NUMBER 4:
How do you know that the concepts of logic, thermodynamics and entropy apply beyond our observable universe?

shadeyinka2:

But I haven't been proving God here. I've been proving that there is an Uncaused First Cause as the origin of the Universe using every tool available to the human mind.

shadeyinka2:
Most Atheists position here on NL is a position of deliberate rejection not an agnostic position that is seeking for the truth. If I've made up my mind to reject an information (whether true or false) then there is no argument under the sun that can change me.

shadeyinka2:
If there is an effect, there must be a cause.
If seere is a cause, it will produce an effect.
There cannot be an effect without a cause.
There are causes and effects.

Therefore there must be a FIRST CAUSE which produceholdingurrent causes and effects.
The question is "Is the First Cause also Caused?" If it is, then the problem of infinite regress continue. However if the First Cause is Uncaused, then we can account for other causes and effects.

The above is simple for any thinking human being. However for anyone whose mind is made up irrespective of the truth, the question will be: "Is logic still valid outside our universe?".

shadeyinka2:

The easiest answer for an unreasonable person pertaining to this is to say "I don't know!"
This would be valid if it stops at that. However, of this same person claim to know things beyond the universe that exclude the First Cause, how did such come to that knowledge?

shadeyinka2:
To believe in God is far much more than recognising that there is a First Cause; It takes knowing the nature of Him/it for a proper logical conclusion to be formed.

shadeyinka2:
Now, it would also be ridiculous for an atheist to want to find Physical evidence for the Uncaused First Cause knowing that every current Physical rule would not apply to Him/it.

shadeyinka2:
It is fraudulent to use a tool to challenge the believe in God and then when boxed into a corner using the same tool, you now bring out "We don't know!".

shadeyinka2:

Can one proof God?

shadeyinka2:

"I don't know if the Spirit realm exists but I know that God is not a spirit!"

How?

budaatum:

What is God?

shadeyinka2:

The Spirit Being who is the Source of Everything.

Atheists know the "Christian" definition/description they just reject such for any kind of personality hence the desbelieve!

But you didn't answer how a person can come to such a contradictory conclusion.

budaatum:
What is God?

malvisguy212:
why do you ask this question ? are you not a believer ?

budaatum:
No, I am not a believer.

budaatum:
No, I am not a believer.

budaatum:

This is how! A Spirit and a Spirit Being are the same thing to some. But honestly, Christians hardly agree what God is, or not, is what I've found.

What's the question again?

shadeyinka2:

God is a Spirit

John 4:24:
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

shadeyinka2:

If you like write attempt number 1000.
Atheists require a physical or scientific proof of God. Any answer devoid of this is nonsensical.

Why use earthly Science as a basis for accepting the Source?

budaatum:

I think wires may have crossed somewhere.
Did I say otherwise?

TheArranger:

Carefully read what you just wrote. Carefully

shadeyinka2:

No, you didn't.

I was just reaffirming that God is a Spirit.

budaatum:

I got the impression you thought I said otherwise. Probably why malvisguy asked if I was a believer.

Might I ask you to explain what "God is a Spirit" means so our atheist friends can understand?

shadeyinka2:

?

TheArranger:

Does your answer make any sense to you? Really? Stop dragging atheists into this issue. The question is about you.

Time is one discipline scientists are attempting to come to grips with and reach a better understanding. In evaluating"time", one other discipline that has a lot in common with 'time" is thermodynamics. And that is what a lot of scientists are examining in order to better understand what time is. Although I do not have advanced theoretical training, I get it.

But what the Bleep does that have to do with whether a god exists or not?

In the academic world (which I have a passing fancy) these deep questions are examined, they know a heck of a lot more than anyone in this forum, theist or atheist. If they ran across any scientific evidence in their calculations for any deity, it would shake the foundations of the scientific community, and everyone would be immediately aware of such a major revelation.

So bros, unless you possess a PhD in particle physics or some similar discipline, just why the Bleep are you attempting to prove a god in an e-forum?

If you can prove via scientific arguments for a god , go to the world of physics, debate with those better equipped to discuss such a subject, and collect your Nobel prize.

And if you can not do that, you're just a deluded joke clowning himself on an internet forum.

Dude, you are conflating atheists requesting evidence and advanced theoretical concepts. Using your tactics will never win me over in this forum. A lot of other users have expressed this same sentiment. But if you sway the scientific community to accept your propositions, I will be the first to fly to your home, shake your hand and offer the most sincere apology possible.

ATTEMPT NUMBER 5:
How do you know that the concepts of logic, thermodynamics and entropy apply beyond our observable universe?

shadeyinka2:

But I haven't been proving God here. I've been proving that there is an Uncaused First Cause as the origin of the Universe using every tool available to the human mind.

Most Atheists position here on NL is a position of deliberate rejection not an agnostic position that is seeking for the truth. If I've made up my mind to reject an information (whether true or false) then there is no argument under the sun that can change me.

If there is an effect, there must be a cause.
If there is a cause, it will produce an effect.
There cannot be an effect without a cause.
There are causes and effects.

Therefore there must be a FIRST CAUSE which produced the current causes and effects.
The question is "Is the First Cause also Caused?" If it is, then the problem of infinite regress continue. However if the First Cause is Uncaused, then we can account for other causes and effects.

The above is simple for any thinking human being. However for anyone whose mind is made up irrespective of the truth, the question will be: "Is logic still valid outside our universe?"

The easiest answer for an unreasonable person pertaining to this is to say "I don't know!"
This would be valid if it stops at that. However, of this same person claim to know things beyond the universe that exclude the First Cause, how did such come to that knowledge?

To believe in God is far much more than recognising that there is a First Cause; It takes knowing the nature of Him/it for a proper logical conclusion to be formed.

Now, it would also be ridiculous for an atheist to want to find Physical evidence for the Uncaused First Cause knowing that every current Physical rule would not apply to Him/it.

It is fraudulent to use a tool to challenge the believe in God and then when boxed into a corner using the same tool, you now bring out "We don't know!".

Can one proof God?
No!
Can one know God?
Yes!
Only the Truth is constant irrespective of data, argument or logic.

shadeyinka2:



Answer number 6:.
Why do you expect the observables as a proof of God.

budaatum:

Whether you call it first causer, intelligent designer, God or gods, creators, they mean the same to the atheist, especially when talking about earth or the universe, so sorry that this just wouldn't wash with an atheist.


This is your opinion. When I was an atheist, there was no God, not because I deliberately decided there was no God. It was the logical conclusion after checking quite a lot of the written evidence for gods and not finding one. I could of course have for some reason or the other decided to believe a god existed but I would have been lying to myself since I had no evidence for holding such a belief.

I don't agree that anyone here on NL is bold enough to deliberately deny God, is my point here, and think you are looking through your own lense thinking others see what you see without considering that perhaps God gave you a gift that the atheist has not yet received.

budaatum:

To be honest, I don't know how true it is that an effect must have a cause, but it is an argument that falls flat on its face when you insert an uncaused causer at the beginning and deny infinite regressions. I mean, even if IRs are impossible, two or three regressions are not impossible, so why can't there be a causer of the supposed first causer, and a causer of the cause of the first causer?

It is a logical argument that needs to suspend logic to suit, I am afraid, the tortoise all the way down argument derided by Hawkins.


No, this isn't quite true, what is claimed is that what you call first cause or effect might not be the first cause or effect and neither you nor they know. And its a valid challenge to the theist who claims to know but merely believes and suspends reason to justify holding that belief.

An example might be, I may not know 2+2=4, but I may know it is not equal to 5720932.

budaatum:

Actually, to 'believe' in God is a choice one makes. And as the Queen said to Alice, "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." But that in no way implies a belief is true unless one checks first, in which case, it is no more a belief, but knowledge.

The folly of believing can clearly be seen here in the religious section where we believe all sorts - 6000 year old earth, dinosaurs eating with Adam and Eve, flat earth, Swiss cheese moon, the Japanese fire up the sun every morning and Trump wants to steal it.

Science is a direct challenge to personal belief, and its what we argue here. I personally can not wait till we learn to use our senses properly and chose to know, to the Glory of God, dare I say.


Now you've kind of gone off piste! If you claim every effect has a cause, why is it ridiculous to keep looking for a causer of every effect? Intellectual rigour alone should motivate one to, and anyone who says don't is only desirous of ignorant people.

In fact, this is my challenge to theists. Is it not written "seek, and you shall find"? How can you possible rule over the earth and the sea, and subdue it and multiply if you have not at least found God's Kingdom?

Personally, anyone who asks me to believe is insulting me and asking me to be shudder like satan, to which my response is, "As for me and my being, I shall worship the Lord". There is no way the Lord will accept a Cain like offering of ignorance from buda!


Trust me. Any atheist who tells you "we don't know" is being kind to you. An honest knowledgeable person will tell you it is written, "No one has seen God except the Son who is God".


Yes, one can, at least in Spirit, as Jesus Christ did. But theists want to use logic and science and fail woefully!

Please know that you got all this out of me as I sit in a major hospital in a major city waiting to discuss poo, and modesty stops me posting a photo (of the hospital doh, and lol!). Though, saying that, I've now changed my mind.

shadeyinka2:

If the universe has an end, then it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, there must be a first cause!

budaatum:

I have a feeling we'll not be around to know if the universe has an end since the universe doesn't seem to be ending soon, and unless you believe in a young earth, a beginning would have been billion years ago. I've found we are only now trying to stitch Prehistoric Egypt (Prior to 3100 BC) together, so I'm not likely to believe much said about many millions of years ago, and nor will I assume to know what I can not possibly know.

But that's me. In these sort of cases, I defer to Christ who told me "not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own". Tomorrow being not tomorrow Thursday, but someday anytime a billion years from now.

TheArranger:

If you have a better option for establishing facts then please, i'm all ears. Infact, why don't you write a book? Earthly science (observables) takes every nonsense out of your brain and tests it. You can rationalize and justify anything in a warped brain. The flat-earthers do it. Alien abductees do it. You are doing it. You don't get to imagine anything into existence. It's that easy.

ATTEMPT NUMBER 6
How do you know concepts like logic, thermodynamics & entropy apply beyond our observable universe?

shadeyinka2:

Why do you expect the observables as proof?

TheArranger:

Earthly science (observables) takes every nonsense out of your brain and tests it. You can rationalize and justify anything in a warped brain. The flat-earthers do it. Alien abductees do it. You are doing it. Replace "god" in my previous post with "source" and my point still stands. You don't get to imagine anything into existence

shadeyinka2:
I expect the normal NL Atheists chest beating after this. You have the floor to exhibit your nature

budaatum:

I have a feeling we'll not be around to know if the universe has an end since the universe doesn't seem to be ending soon, and unless you believe in a young earth, a beginning would have been billion years ago. I've found we are only now trying to stitch Prehistoric Egypt (Prior to 3100 BC) together, so I'm not likely to believe much said about many millions of years ago, and nor will I assume to know what I can not possibly know.

But that's me. In these sort of cases, I defer to Christ who told me "not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own". Tomorrow being not tomorrow Thursday, but someday anytime a billion years from now.

TheArranger:


Dude, you're embarrassing yourself with these sorry evasion tactics. We currently do not know any method better than the "observables" that can be used for establishing facts about observable reality.
I can see the point you tried to make but you've failed because you've now taken us back to square 1:

ATTEMPT NUMBER 7
How do you know concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics (the observables) apply beyond our observable universe?

BQ: Can you define "beyond our universe" in any way that is debatable?