No they don't. Them being natural does not contradict with the statement "God exists".

If I'm correct and I may be wrong... the bible was interpreted from a man spoken to by god? God claims the earth is 6k years old when it's not... amongst other things. He claims to have created man when we have evidence (evolution) that says other wise.

And you have to exscuse me if I dismiss all the silly claims that prayers are answered. Why not believe in ghosts and pink unicorns when someone says they saw them? Or lepruchauns for that matter. Is this even getting through to you at all? it's so freaking childish I just want to rip my hair out when you say things like this.

I mean I understand why you believe in god but I don't understand why you cant dismiss it for the slightest second.

I was religious because I was born into it. When I grew up and put my big boy pants on I accepted my fate/reality as it was and turned away from it. In fact I have been much happier and open minded to new ideas (homosexuality amongst other things) and accepted them instead of claiming "evil"

I know I have not given you sufficent evidence disproving god but come on guy... seriously... can you think logically for just a second and see the logic in my statements? Try REALLY REALLY hard. You believe in ghosts. How am I supposed to respect that? I think it's safe to say you can disprove something if you cant prove it ever existing. Like unicorns and and flying spaghetti monsters. Just think logically for a second!

I think it's safe to say you can disprove something if you cant prove it ever existing.

I have to disagree with this sentence.  If you can't prove or disprove something - you're just playing a probability game.

If you can't prove that I think, that doesn't mean that I don't think.  I don't think that you can really prove that I can think (but if you did I would be quite impressed).

So I have never received anything that can be even close to proof of God nonexisting.

Hmm...
But, there are several conditions for God's existence, nevertheless; for example, determinism and evolution (descent with modification).

I see what you are saying but I'm trying my best to put it into terms that I want Vesper to understand. A lot of people are going to have trouble believing in him if he never shows his face, never speaks to anyone or does anything at all for that matter.

And you are right my statement was wrong.  But I might as well say pink unicorns are real because a man said so in his ancient book and a pink unicorn died for my sins and pink unicorns gave me sin because they ate from a magic tree convinced by a talking black unicorn. And the magical golden unicorn created his pink unicorns wrong,and is punishing them.... And being the omniprecent being that he is knew his badly created pink unicorns were going to eat from the magic tree but made them anyway and put the tree there in the first place. Haha said the golden unicorn now everyone has sin and is going to hell if they dont worship me woot woot!

I am done here I am going to bed, this thread is really making me mad I'm sorry if i offended.... lol...

All this stuff that has been listed is necessarily true or false - and it applies to all things, including God

You have just defined binary logic and made a statement that it applies to God, not supporting it with any reasons other than binary logic being applied to universe. God is not a "thing", as a "thing" is a creation (or creature, whatever is created) and God is not created. Therefore God is not included in a set of "all things" which is the universe, which can indeed be described by binary logic. So there is an incorrect statement in this conclusion, making it logically false. Good attempt though.

God claims the earth is 6k years old when it's not... amongst other things. He claims to have created man when we have evidence (evolution) that says other wise.

Well, there's a verse in the Bible stating "God has one day as 1000 years, and 1000 years as one day". This means a "day" when the say stars were created is not a "24-hour period" but an indefinitely long period. The same applies to the age of Earth. About evolution - God claims He created human, but provides no exact method about how it was done, and what time passed during this creation.

And you have to exscuse me if I dismiss all the silly claims that prayers are answered.

Yes, you have the right to ignore this evidence, but you don't have the logical ground to deny them happening because you count them as silly. Some of them might not happen in fact, someone said "coincidences happen" with a vid, but no one can state that all of them are just coincidences. Let's take Fatima's miracle in terms of sheer probability, there are 30k to 70k witnesses with consonant evidence of the dancing sun. Even if you will give a 1/2 probability for one person to see a selected vision, and give 1/2 as a correction factor because of them being close and sharing visions, we're still talking about 1/2^15000 probability at its most for this coincidence to happen. The chance of a meteorite striking a selected human within 10 seconds after him reading this is deemed "highly improbable". Let's try to derive this chance. The smallest odds of this is 1.82e14 to 1 per lifetime, from here, making the probability to be 5.5e-15. Taking 70 years as a lifetime, that's 2.207e9 seconds, the chance to be hit in the next 10 seconds is lowered by 2.207e8, making 2.49e-23. 1/2^15000 is 3.55e-4516, a WHOLE LOT lower than the calculated value. Think about this.

I see what you are saying but I'm trying my best to put it into terms that I want Vesper to understand.

I understand your point. However, Einfach is right here, if one can't prove something there is still a nonzero chance of it existing. I can state that there IS a flying spaghetti monster somewhere like 1.0e7-1.0e10 light years away from here. I can't prove this statement, but given a VERY WIDE area of universe within these limits, with current assumption for chances of life-supporting planets to exist around stars of a given class, and other assumptions that science has about life existing in the universe, there is a pretty big chance of such a creature existing within the given limits. (Under "pretty big" I mean values around 1e-7 and higher) Note that I haven't yet set its size or classification of "spaghetti" - a mere medusa can comply with such a definition. After all, a medusa flies in its natural condition, if viewed from its perspective.

Blatant ignorance never leads to anything. This discussion ends in a stalemate.

- H is not hinting ignorance or anything. Again, you said something without backing it up.

When I see a post full of "BS" statements, I classify it as ignorance.

As a defense mechanism?

I'm speaking of God thus indeed referring to the Bible,

Which cannot yet be proved, or you have not proved it. Speak on our level (logic, reason, proof) if you want to convince us of anything.

and since the context is not shared, this means I am being ignored.

Put this into context:
I'm being told / asked / w/e to believe in God otherwise I will burn in hell. I know little of God or how he influences everyone and as far as I am concerned, I've done NOTHING wrong. Why should I believe him? He has some good morals, sure, but I have already developed my own and I disagree with his. Why should I sacrifice the essence of my personality for something that hasn't been backed up as true?

Ok... well what do you have to say to this. There is proof dismissing a god and any sort of deity. and there is no proof that god exists.

Even saying that isn't good enough. That just shows he is ignorant to logic which is, undoubtedly better than faith.

Evolution and countless scientific observations dismiss god I'm sure you have heard them plenty on the forums and I wont go into detail.

I hope he hasn't, because that means we're just recycling.

Nothing has ever happened that has ever proved a deity. Prayers are NEVER answered, I don't see Satan tricking anyone in any animal forms EVER nor do i EVER hear about it. God was all sorts of active back in the day but all of a sudden he dissapears? What is the evidence that proves a deity exists? There is none

Well, erm, apparently, he helps vesperbot get the courage to speak up against these advocates of Satan, yes, yes, that is indeed logical.

Thats because he can't.  The argument that God is above logic only exists because some people understand neither logic or God, then claim God must be above logic.

I think they're just stuck in their ways and rely on God to back them up, y'know, because he's all powerful and such.

That is rather pathetic, being unable to rely on yourself for what makes a core part of your life, by the way.

God is above binary logic only because He doesn't exist!

True, fiction doesn't always need logic. :D

WHERE?! Science does not dismiss God, and any time I ask anyone for such a proof that one dodges the direct answer with "burden of proof". So I have never received anything that can be even close to proof of God nonexisting.

Well, how about you stick to your words and provide evidence that God does exist. Personal beliefs, Biblical references, and stories you have heard from other people do not count, since there have been extreme happenings of some pretty annoying stuff happening.
Also you show a huge amount of hypocricy, you dodge many of my questions. Typical? From my perspective, yes.

LOL. Especially about prayer. Atheists just dismiss personal evidence of people who claim their prayers have been answered, and then you form such a statement.

Why should we? It could be chance, it could be a friend, it could be anything. It is not solid evidence and should not be considered so. I heard stories of my friends seeing ghosts of their relatives. I don't question it, but I don't believe them entirely either. It could be ANYTHING. I'd prefer believe it is an alien essence that influences the human brain to hallucinating, before I believe it is the spirit of someone. Why? Because I know how the brain works, mostly, and I can see how the brain is literally your personality.

it's so freaking childish I just want to rip my hair out when you say things like this.

Too true. It is incredibly annoying to see his hypocritical complaints...

and open minded to new ideas (homosexuality amongst other things) and accepted them instead of claiming "evil"

That is the way of arguing. Vesperbot clearly shows that he is undoubtedly sticking with his religion, and for that I hate him since he is delving in an argument, probably hoping to "convert" someone, and yet he would not attempt to do the same. I am staying open to his "logic", and yet I see none, and thus I get ripped on for it. Yet, we can provide many things - articles, scientific theories, other proven scientific theories that back us up, conflicting ideas and etc and yet he appears to not care about them.
They're evil, or something, I guess.

I know I have not given you sufficent evidence disproving god but come on guy... seriously... can you think logically for just a second and see the logic in my statements? Try REALLY REALLY hard. You believe in ghosts. How am I supposed to respect that? I think it's safe to say you can disprove something if you cant prove it ever existing. Like unicorns and and flying spaghetti monsters. Just think logically for a second!

This argument is open to abuse. He can easily say "I've thought about it and the bla bla bla seems right to me". Why?
He'll go to hell, of course.

I don't think that you can really prove that I can think (but if you did I would be quite impressed).

Err. I can't prove it but there are stories I've heard about people thinking about specific things when unable to control themselves physically in order to communicate... I am not sure how accurate this information is but I can see how it could happen, really speaking. I know psychological thoughts interact physically with the body, not always, but often it can.

this thread is really making me mad I'm sorry if i offended.... lol...

Dunno why you should be sorry. Right now logical reasoning really doesn't seem to work and thus a more direct approach may actually work.

God is not a "thing", as a "thing" is a creation

To you, maybe. A thing is anything. God is related to anything, because he is anything.

but provides no exact method about how it was done, and what time passed during this creation.

1 day to make the earth
1 day to make the sky
1 day to make the sea
1 day to make animals
1 day to make the land
1 day to make the humans
1 day to make the plants

Something like that.
7 Days, precisely.

Yes, you have the right to ignore this evidence, but you don't have the logical ground to deny them happening because you count them as silly. Some of them might not happen in fact, someone said "coincidences happen" with a vid, but no one can state that all of them are just coincidences. Let's take Fatima's miracle in terms of sheer probability, there are 30k to 70k witnesses with consonant evidence of the dancing sun. Even if you will give a 1/2 probability for one person to see a selected vision, and give 1/2 as a correction factor because of them being close and sharing visions, we're still talking about 1/2^15000 probability at its most for this coincidence to happen. The chance of a meteorite striking a selected human within 10 seconds after him reading this is deemed "highly improbable". Let's try to derive this chance. The smallest odds of this is 1.82e14 to 1 per lifetime, from here, making the probability to be 5.5e-15. Taking 70 years as a lifetime, that's 2.207e9 seconds, the chance to be hit in the next 10 seconds is lowered by 2.207e8, making 2.49e-23. 1/2^15000 is 3.55e-4516, a WHOLE LOT lower than the calculated value. Think about this.

Er.. Can you try and cut out the numbers like that? :D A "1 in a ?!?!?!" would be better and I honestly do not want to follow and focus on that too much.

Also, they probably are all coincidences. People who don't repent for their sins go to hell, correct? So what about the people who've never heard the name Jesus, the word creation or the meaning of faith?
They will go to hell, with no fairness involved, whatsoever.
And I doubt they will believe it anyway: "Oh hey, God has your back despite letting you suffer for 17 years, you know, if you be good despite this unfairness he may stop you at the train of eternal punishment."

I understand your point. However, Einfach is right here, if one can't prove something there is still a nonzero chance of it existing. I can state that there IS a flying spaghetti monster somewhere like 1.0e7-1.0e10 light years away from here. I can't prove this statement, but given a VERY WIDE area of universe within these limits, with current assumption for chances of life-supporting planets to exist around stars of a given class, and other assumptions that science has about life existing in the universe, there is a pretty big chance of such a creature existing within the given limits. (Under "pretty big" I mean values around 1e-7 and higher) Note that I haven't yet set its size or classification of "spaghetti" - a mere medusa can comply with such a definition. After all, a medusa flies in its natural condition, if viewed from its perspective.

First thing. You say this, yes. But I think the point is what seems the most logical? Evolution has proof, logic and reason backing it up. Religion is based on faith and pretty much entirely faith. Of course, God might exist, but I refuse to believe in him based on these small things I've heard compared to the conflicting definitions of many Scientific Theories. Therefore I choose to believe in this.

Doesn't that sound logical?

- H

God wishes us to distinguish truth from lies, a good deed from a sin, and He wishes us to not sin by making us be hurt if we commit sins.

Great, so as long as we live we aren't able to fully discern good from evil, and only when we die and get hurt we finally find out, and have to pay for our sins which we didn't do fully consciously?

And don't tell me that god is telling some persons what is right and what is wrong, because that would be a constraint to your concept of free will and a contradiction to what you say.
Oh wait... you already did:

This association is wrong, since God constantly reminds His children about what not to do, and more so when the events were back there in the paradise, since Adam and Eve were a lot closer to God than the best of us are.

Didn't I tell you not to contradict yourself?

Quit assuming it's real till you prove it real.
Thanks.

I'm atheist. Everything I say about religion and their myths is automatically hypothetical. Also I don't want to have a discussion whether it's true or false first everytime I want to discuss something else. Thank you for your understanding.

I'm atheist. Everything I say about religion and their myths is automatically hypothetical. Also I don't want to have a discussion whether it's true or false first everytime I want to discuss something else. Thank you for your understanding.

It was pointed towards Vesperbot. Even if it were hypothetical, the argument does not stand, and therefore hypothetical or belief it doesn't matter. Directed only towards Vesper. :D

- H

Yes, God made us imperfect, probably because of angels being made perfect, and some of them irreversably turned away from God, thus becoming demons.

How is it our fault for sinning if we were made to be faulty?
Further more how could an angel make a bad decision if they were made perfect? If the are perfect and the best decision to make to stay with God then non of them should have turned away from God let along legions of them.

You probably mistake the two sides of laws: the sentences available for breaking a certain law can be changed, like removing a death penalty for certain crimes, and instating a long-term jail instead, while the definitions of crimes do not change, thus, homosexual actions are still sins or "crimes".

You said it doesn't change one iota. A change in sentence is still a change. There are also laws that many including the churches no longer follow as well such as not eating pork or shellfish. It really seems the Bible is a pick and choose of morals.

Who has left the world first, the one in Heaven or the one that ended up in Hell? However, in both cases the loving one will pray God for the other's salvation. If the loving one's love is true, his prayers will also be true and guided by love, and God will grant that person salvation. In case of the loving one to enter Heaven prior to the other one's leaving the world, the loving one's love is proven to be true, thus he will be heard.

So it really doesn't matter if I believe in God or not or even what sins I commit so long as I have someone going or in Heaven who will prayer for me to get in?

This association is wrong, since God constantly reminds His children about what not to do, and more so when the events were back there in the paradise, since Adam and Eve were a lot closer to God than the best of us are.

Last reminder was with what Jesus? Otherwise it's just the "children" telling either other. So no it isn't wrong.

He gives you signs of His presence and urges you to turn back to Him,

No he didn't give me any signs, at least non that I could possibly recognize as being from him, which he would know I wouldn't understand and would be as good as no sign at all.

and when a person dies, his book of life will be presented to him with full explanation of what choices he made that led him into the state of denying God. This book contains the entire set of information about the person in question, including his thoughts and hidden intentions, and by these thoughts, intentions and deeds will a person be judged.

Why would God need a book of my deeds and all if he already knows all this stuff? Also non of this answers the question of why God would make me knowing full well that I would make these decisions and end up in hell. 

Please read above in this post regarding temptations.

So God intended for us to sin? He made us flawed, put the temptation in the way, and knew Adam and Eve would fall for it easily.

Also on the tempt thing from God...

James 1:13 (KJV)
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Interesting how God clearly does yet it says he doesn't.

I'm not. And, you are tempting others to become sexually aroused by the pictures you provide. Remember that Jesus said: "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!"

So your making a claim that your not even willing to test to find out if it's even accurate. If I am correct then it shouldn't be possible for you to commit such a sin.

I'm not gay myself, but can't people be gay genetically and simply by choice?

As pointed out it's bee tried to get someone to be gay based on upbringing and it didn't work. It has to do more with the way the genes are expressed then the genetic makeup that determines homo or hetero sexuality.

Also I did state back there that God does not need to comply with binary logic, this in turn means that science, which is based on binary logic, cannot determine either God existing or God nonexisting. This statement hasn't been objected so far.

If we can't determine God exists or not then we have no reason to believe he does.

No they don't. Them being natural does not contradict with the statement "God exists".

Correct however it does refute many of the claims of the Bible.

LOL. Especially about prayer. Atheists just dismiss personal evidence of people who claim their prayers have been answered, and then you form such a statement.

That's because it's entirely subjective.  Accepting any such claims as evidence for God would be no better then accepting a schizophrenics delusions as evidence for what ever they see as being real.

I think it's safe to say you can disprove something if you cant prove it ever existing.

You can't prove a negative.
Here's a video better explaining.
James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative