Forums → WEPR → If God made Everything...

It was a direct quote of sorts and I said "God is obviously not" keyword: NOT. Let me emphasize that again for you, cause you seemed to have skipped it: NOT. But there was a grammar fail on my part. Where did that 'does' come from? O.o

it reads "does not make sense'.

And God is obviously does not 'make sense or is impossible or is false'

AKA immortality or ultimate powers.

No, not immortality, it would be terrible for the population if everyone lived for ever, that would make humans imperfect.

But it's equally as offensive. Attacking somebodies beliefs is terribly rude, and persecuting for it is even worse. I assume you live in the US, ever hear of 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION'? Basically the fact that you can't ridicule people for their beliefs.

Asking for proof is offensive now? I have heard of 'freedom of religion' but I do not live in the US, and sense when is asking for proof and then dismissing someones beliefs when they have no proof ridiculing them?

Yes. If you believe in evolution it is very plausible.

Hardly, evolution does not give you magic powers.

They have proof of their own testimonies and how it changed their lives, etc. Also, have you even taken a look at these forums?!? It's basically just the atheists saying that God doesn't exist and harassing all the theists. The atheist-theist ration is in HIGH favor of atheism. That or not all of the theists that browse these forums post, making them completely irrelevant, as they're not chastising you or anybody else.

If I said god told me that he does not exist, would that be proof that he does not exist? And its basically theists saying God exists and harassing all the atheists who disagree. The ratio does not change who is right and who is wrong, it is not an excuse for theists to not have any backing or proof.
And Christans do chastise atheists.

CONTRADICTION. By saying that poorly phrased sentences, you said that:

1) Science came first.
2) Religion is right, as it came later, and it explains science.

Wow, way to fail.

I said that:
1) Science came first, but was not very advanced and couldn't explain large things.
2)Religion came second, to explain definitively what we couldn't explain with science. Science couldn't say we are here because of THIS. PERIOD. Science couldn't say that this and that happen because of THIS. We naturally want answers, and religion gave us what science could not.
That is a very simple idea and I have no idea how you twisted that to your own side.

Who said that came before religion?

Proven science.
We've found rocks which we used science to find flaws in and use/not use and sculpt from before we have evidence of large gatherings and evidence of advanced communication/mindsets.

it reads "does not make sense'.

Mistake on my part. I believe I meant something along the lines of "And God is obviously not illogical or impossible." I'm not perfect, know....Also notice the 's. Meaning that starts the quote from you. And if you pair it with other words in there, such as 'impossible' or 'false' it makes me not disagree with you. So good job at taking things out of context. AGAIN.

No, not immortality, it would be terrible for the population if everyone lived for ever, that would make humans imperfect.

Survival is not dying. Therefore being perfect at not dying would be being immortal. And if there immortal, they can survive anywhere, regardless of conditions, cause they are immortal.

Asking for proof is offensive now? I have heard of 'freedom of religion' but I do not live in the US, and sense when is asking for proof and then dismissing someones beliefs when they have no proof ridiculing them?

Asking for proof isn't, but saying "God doesn't exist. Face it. I'm obviously right and everything you say is wrong." is, in fact, offensive. Also, cool. I don't live in America either. lol. :P

Hardly, evolution does not give you magic powers.

Maybe not 'magic' powers, but it surely can give you powers. Evolution is basically enhancing the species to help it survive and etc, so if the species needs the ability to create oxygen, they'll gain the power to convert CO2 or whatever into oxygen. Therefore, if God needed food, he would go through evolution and gain the power to create food from seemingly nowhere.

If I said god told me that he does not exist, would that be proof that he does not exist? And its basically theists saying God exists and harassing all the atheists who disagree. The ratio does not change who is right and who is wrong, it is not an excuse for theists to not have any backing or proof.
And Christans do chastise atheists.

No, because God told you apparently. Meaning God just told a lie. You really need to read these forums. Seriously. Look at how many pro-atheism threads there are, and how much theist-hate there is, compared to the amount of atheism-hate. While Christians do chastise atheists, the atheists do the majority of chastising because theists are just "being unscientific by my standards."

3) Independent beings: these are entities which don't need a cause for their existence. God, by definition, is an independent being.

But EVERYTHING has a cause. There must have been a creation. You can not under these circumstances say that he exists because he exists. It is not possible for something to "just be there". Supernatural or not, he must have been caused.


Ridiculous example: (For Voidy)

Who is not to say that God is actually an alien, who was sucked into a black hole? He then was transferred here, into our dimension. Previously, he was merely "normal", by their standards. But after the transfer into our area of the galaxy, he gained supernatural powers! He could, as if by magic, create anything at will! And that is how humans came to be...

But EVERYTHING has a cause. There must have been a creation. You can not under these circumstances say that he exists because he exists. It is not possible for something to "just be there". Supernatural or not, he must have been caused.

Then the universe must have a cause then, does it not? Matter can't "just be there," as you put it. Meaning that the matter for the first big crunch/big bang had to have been caused by something.

And that theory is rather awesome/funny. I doubt it, but since I can't disprove, I can't exactly just disregard it as stupid/definitely not possible. :/

Asking for proof isn't, but saying "God doesn't exist. Face it. I'm obviously right and everything you say is wrong." is, in fact, offensive. Also, cool. I don't live in America either. lol. :P

Is saying "God exists, I'm obviously right and everything you say is wrong" offensive? And is it offensive to tell someone who thinks "the inside of the sun is hollow and purple?" that they are wrong?

Maybe not 'magic' powers, but it surely can give you powers. Evolution is basically enhancing the species to help it survive and etc, so if the species needs the ability to create oxygen, they'll gain the power to convert CO2 or whatever into oxygen. Therefore, if God needed food, he would go through evolution and gain the power to create food from seemingly nowhere.

He would not evolve in the first place, a single individually does not evolve, and you can't create food out of seemingly nowhere unless 'seemingly nowhere' contains the ingredients(unintentional sort of pun) to make food, a species can only convert co2 into oxygen because it has oxygen in it.

No, because God told you apparently. Meaning God just told a lie. You really need to read these forums. Seriously. Look at how many pro-atheism threads there are, and how much theist-hate there is, compared to the amount of atheism-hate. While Christians do chastise atheists, the atheists do the majority of chastising because theists are just "being unscientific by my standards."

God could have told me then used his omnipotence to make himself never have existed. I read these forums and the 'theist-hate' threads start as other threads that evolve(again unintentional choice of words that could be considered a pun) into theist hate threads after the theists decline to give evidence for the deity.

Is saying "God exists, I'm obviously right and everything you say is wrong" offensive? And is it offensive to tell someone who thinks "the inside of the sun is hollow and purple?" that they are wrong?

Like saying, God doesn't exist, I'm right

God could have told me then used his omnipotence to make himself never have existed. I read these forums and the 'theist-hate' threads start as other threads that evolve(again unintentional choice of words that could be considered a pun) into theist hate threads after the theists decline to give evidence for the deity.

Would you consider yourself guilty of this?

Is saying "God exists, I'm obviously right and everything you say is wrong" offensive? And is it offensive to tell someone who thinks "the inside of the sun is hollow and purple?" that they are wrong?

First of all, you haven't been inside the sun, so you can't exactly disprove that. Secondly, if it's part of their religion, yes it's rude. That would mean your directly attacking somebodies religion, which has started many wars in the past and gotten many people killed. Thirdly, yes. It is rather offensive. Because it boils down to "we don't know if God really exists." Therefore, it's an opinion on an answer to a question we don't know the actual answer to. Therefore, since it is an opinion, it is rather offensive to say somebodies opinion is wrong, especially since we don't know the answer for sure.

He would not evolve in the first place, a single individually does not evolve, and you can't create food out of seemingly nowhere unless 'seemingly nowhere' contains the ingredients(unintentional sort of pun) to make food, a species can only convert co2 into oxygen because it has oxygen in it.

A species evolution has to start with someone does it not? The basic principle for evolution is that all life came from a single organism. How is this any different?

God could have told me then used his omnipotence to make himself never have existed. I read these forums and the 'theist-hate' threads start as other threads that evolve(again unintentional choice of words that could be considered a pun) into theist hate threads after the theists decline to give evidence for the deity.

Could have, but not likely. And omnipotence is all-knowing. You can't use knowledge of everything to make yourself never exist, without destroying the whole universe in the whole process. While some of them don't start out as theist-hate threads, quite a bit of them do. Such as this one. And the "The MAIN reason I am an atheist." and "Perversion of Religion" and "Is religion insanity?" and "Question your faith in your religion" and many more just flat out start by attacking theism. Yes, there is also plenty of atheism-hate. And your excuse for theism threads turning into theism-hate threads makes it just sound like all your atheists are frustrated because you have no proof or disproof of God. :/

species evolution has to start with someone does it not? The basic principle for evolution is that all life came from a single organism. How is this any different?

Evelution happens in generations, not one, and since your "god" is immortal, and reproduces as the human race does, he can't evolve

Evolution happened on earth becase the first organisms were bacteria, the just split thus allowing for evolution.

Evelution happens in generations, not one, and since your "god" is immortal, and reproduces as the human race does, he can't evolve

Evolution happened on earth becase the first organisms were bacteria, the just split thus allowing for evolution.

Exactly. Evolution has to start from A SINGLE ORGANISM. What makes it so hard to accept the fact that a super organism was the first to evolve to the point of absolute perfection in his whole species, and didn't have the chance to pass on his ultimate genes to the next generation because the Big Crunch or whatever happens? Anyways, that's just a theory, and I don't really believe it. I simply thought it up to prove the point that God is indeed plausible. :/

Evolution happened on earth becase the first organisms were bacteria, the just split thus allowing for evolution.

How do they split?

Would you consider yourself guilty of this?

Yes.

First of all, you haven't been inside the sun, so you can't exactly disprove that.

In the same way I can't prove the moon revolves around the earth because I have never watched it go all the way around.

Secondly, if it's part of their religion, yes it's rude. That would mean your directly attacking somebodies religion, which has started many wars in the past and gotten many people killed.

Hows it rude? All it is doing is questioning there faith.

Thirdly, yes. It is rather offensive. Because it boils down to "we don't know if God really exists." Therefore, it's an opinion on an answer to a question we don't know the actual answer to. Therefore, since it is an opinion, it is rather offensive to say somebodies opinion is wrong, especially since we don't know the answer for sure.

We know its very unlikely for there to be a God. Its not wrong to ask someone for prove and then dismiss their claims when they offer none up.

A species evolution has to start with someone does it not? The basic principle for evolution is that all life came from a single organism. How is this any different?

Because for god to evolve powers he would have needed to have ancestors.

And omnipotence is all-knowing.

Omnipotence is all powerful, all knowing is omniscient.

While some of them don't start out as theist-hate threads, quite a bit of them do. Such as this one. And the "The MAIN reason I am an atheist." and "Perversion of Religion" and "Is religion insanity?" and "Question your faith in your religion" and many more just flat out start by attacking theism. Yes, there is also plenty of atheism-hate.

I can't argue [against] that.

And your excuse for theism threads turning into theism-hate threads makes it just sound like all your atheists are frustrated because you have no proof or disproof of God. :/

To disprove something it has to have some proof to begin with, otherwise you have nothing to work with.

How do they split?

Mitosis.

Exactly. Evolution has to start from A SINGLE ORGANISM. What makes it so hard to accept the fact that a super organism was the first to evolve to the point of absolute perfection in his whole species, and didn't have the chance to pass on his ultimate genes to the next generation because the Big Crunch or whatever happens? Anyways, that's just a theory, and I don't really believe it. I simply thought it up to prove the point that God is indeed plausible. :/

lol! Another special ed science graduate.

How do they split?

Seriously you really shouldn't be arguing for or against evolution if you don't even know the basics of single celled reproduction.

How do they split?

....Fail.

Hows it rude? All it is doing is questioning there faith.

Think of it as slapping their face, but instead of face, thoughts. It could be considered a form of persecution.

We know its very unlikely for there to be a God. Its not wrong to ask someone for prove and then dismiss their claims when they offer none up.

Do you have actual numbers supporting the "very unlikely" chance of God (e.g. 1:10, 1:20, etc)? While it isn't wrong, per se, you also can't bring up DISPROOF for the said claim either. Making it a stalemate and once again: it has boiled down to "we don't know."

Because for god to evolve powers he would have needed to have ancestors.

So? God never says there were other gods before him, just that he is currently the only one true God.

Omnipotence is all powerful, all knowing is omniscient.

A fail on my part. I always get those 2 mixed up. :/

To disprove something it has to have some proof to begin with, otherwise you have nothing to work with.

OK, take for example a paternity court case where the mother is demanding money because she's accusing this guy that he's the father. She has no proof of it, but the people take a blood sample of the baby, and it has AB blood. The man has O blood type. Therefore, the man has been disproved to be the father, without any proof in the first place saying he was the father.

lol! Another special ed science graduate.

I'm confused as to which part your referring to. Is it the starting at a single organism? Then if so, you must be the one who graduated from special ed science. The latter part was more of a joke (you can see that when I say "Anyways, that's just a theory and I don't really believe in it). And it does offer a scenario where God is plausible.

Seriously you really shouldn't be arguing for or against evolution if you don't even know the basics of single celled reproduction.

I agree. >.>