Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How does Romans 1 explain this...?


Mr. Neil

Recommended Posts

Presupposition means to takes something as true without proof.

Presuppositional apologetics is trying to give a rational basis for Christian faith, but it in the same breath requires you to accept the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. So its basically just accepting the unproven and irrational as rational.

 

Romans 1 is basically saying presupposition is not an issue in regards to God.

 

It is saying that we should be able to look at creation and know that there is a Creator. It then goes on to say that even with this proof of the Creator’s existence, many have chosen to turn away from God.

In a sense you’re right, Romans 1 is not a presuppositional apologetics proof of God, because it doesn’t base its argument from the Bible per se, but from nature. Now the question is if Nature is a proof of God or not? I feel the Nature is the proof of Evolution, so what gives?

 

There is mounting scientific proof that the universe was created, thus a Creator.

Huh? Are you sure about that? There is amounting scientific proof that evolution happened, while creationists having a hard time to keep up. The Creator has not been proven; you can at best argue an Accidental Cause of the Universe, but nothing more. If you can do better than that, you should write a book and you will go to history, dude!

 

Romans chapter 1 is not about presupposition, it is about opening your eyes to all that is around you. Whether you believe in the Holy Bible’s God or not, you eventually must acknowledge something had to create all of this.

My eyes are more open today, than the 30 years as Christian. You have to realize you’re not talking to a school boy without any knowledge or abilities to rational arguments, you’re talking to people that have years of studies and training in the Christian faith, and have learned more arguments against their former religion in one single year, than they learned over decades of hard studies.

 

The argument that Nature proves that God exists, is only a proof to someone that already have an emotional reason to believe there must be a God. I used to feel that too, but I have seen and felt from Nature that God didn’t have to have created it, at least not the Christian God.

 

If you want to discuss the possibility of a Generic God, a Creator of Unknown kind, instead of you fundamentalized stereotyped God based on pious foundations, and then I will give you the benefit of a doubt to state your case.

 

But if you claim that science and nature proves the existence of specifically The Christian God with Two Eyes and 5”8’ Tall and Shoe Size 9.5, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-benevolent, and Jesus is his son, and blah, blah, blah, blah, then you have chosen the wrong audience. You see religion can only be proven with religion. What you see as The Truth, is not considered Truth in the real world, only amongst the believers. Your faith is nothing more than believing one of these psychics that read minds and talk to dead people! It only works for them who believes!

 

You know what Nature shows me?

It shows Beauty, Bliss, Harmony and Comfort, but no God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    58

  • Mythra

    43

  • Mr. Neil

    31

  • invictus1967

    20

Most science has abandoned the idea of an eternal universe.

Somewhat true.

 

The “Big Bang” theory is the dominant accepted theory for the origin of the universe.

There are competing theories that are gaining grounds.

 

If the universe had a beginning, it seems logical to conclude a Beginner.

Huh? A beginning requires a beginner? Are you sure?

 

Look at this:

A rock starts rolling down a hill. It has been in rest for hundreds of years. What made it start rolling? An earthquake shook the mountain, and the rock lost its support. So who was the Beginner? Ah, I see, all natural events have God as the beginner. You are just like the old religious people that explained thunderstorm and rain with gods flying over the sky and doing their tricks.

 

Atheists like to say that given enough time (billions and billions of years) anything is possible. However, at some point something had to initiate things and it is not logical that pure “chance” is the reason we are here.

And that “something” could have been just as unintelligent and non-conscious as the dirt you’re standing on.

 

Why is “chance” not logical?????

 

Because “chance” is nothing. It is not a force nor is it a material substance. We say there is a 50-50 “chance” the coin will land on heads when flipped, but chance is not what causes the coin to land on one side or the other. Someone has to actually apply force to the coin to cause it to flip. This force combined with the way the coin lands on a surface and how it bounces on the surface are the factors that determine heads or tails, not “chance”. We use the word “chance” to express the possible outcomes, but it does NOT cause the outcome. As far as being a substance or a force, “chance” is neither. In reality, it is nothing.

Then you don’t believe in free will either. Because if free will really exists, then it exists outside Gods control. If God controls our will, then we don’t have free will. So free will is the chance God had to take. So God took a chance and depend on it, and it’s outside his control. So chance does exist outside God. You have to believe in chance too.

 

Therefore, if you say there is no God and we are here because of “chance” then it concludes your formula for the universe is as follows:

 

NOBODY plus NOTHING equals EVERYTHING

 

Does that seem logical?

Then why would this be more logical:

SOMEBODY plus NOTHING equals EVERYTHING

 

So where did this SOMEBODY come from? Logically that SOMEBODY can’t just exist for eternity or come into existence without a creator? So maybe you shouldn’t believe in God, but in Super-God. But wait, it doesn’t stop there. Super-God was created by Ultra-God, so you should believe in Ultra-God instead. And it doesn’t end!

 

That what Romans 1 is all about. Apply logic when you look at the universe and simply ask yourself is it reasonable to conclude that the universe was generated from nothing by nothing?

No Romans 1 is not a logic argument for God, but an emotional argument. You feel that nature couldn’t exist without a Creator, therefore you believe. It doesn’t prove it, only gives you the sublime experience that triggers the emotional center in your brain that requires an answer for the mystery you can’t explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most science has abandoned the idea of an eternal universe.
Hmm... I don't think you understood what I meant.

 

 

The “Big Bang” theory is the dominant accepted theory for the origin of the universe.

 

If the universe had a beginning, it seems logical to conclude a Beginner.

Nope, you definitely didn't understand, because here you are showing us that you clearly don't understand the big bang concept. The big bang is not the kind of beginning you think it is. It's not a linear beginning.

 

The big bang is also the beginning of time, so therefore when you talk about a time before time, which is where your "beginner" would be, you've trudged your way into absurdity.

 

Really. Open a book.

 

 

Atheists like to say that given enough time (billions and billions of years) anything is possible.
Wow. No we don't. That's your caricature of an atheist. Atheists don't appeal to time like it's a magic goodybag that we can just turn to whenever we can't explain something.

 

 

However, at some point something had to initiate things and it is not logical that pure “chance” is the reason we are here.
So how does this something translate into a someone, and why do you assume that it's the God of the Bible?

 

I don't see where you're getting this creator from.

 

blah... blah... skipping nonsense... blah blah...

 

 

Therefore, if you say there is no God and we are here because of “chance” then it concludes your formula for the universe is as follows:
Oh, now I understand what all that babbling was about. You were construction a strawman.

 

Who says that we're here by chance? No atheist I know.

 

 

NOBODY plus NOTHING equals EVERYTHING

 

Does that seem logical?

No, because it's a strawman. No one says that.

 

That what Romans 1 is all about. Apply logic when you look at the universe and simply ask yourself is it reasonable to conclude that the universe was generated from nothing by nothing?

Again, if you want to clarify Romans 1, you're barking up the wrong tree. This topic was started as a criticism of someone else's argument. (i.e., a Christian who uses Romans 1 to say that atheists know God.)

 

So take a hike already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck. Since I see the "agnostic Christian" as a contradiction in terms, I see the term "Christian philosopher" as problematic also. "Agnostic Christian philosophers" would be (and usually were) considered heretics.

Oh, I do agree. An Agnostic Christian is not the true, regular Christian, but someone (I guess) that doubt Gods existence, but choose the Bible as their guiding book for living.

 

We'll see when I find it.

 

But Christian Philosopher I don't have any problems with. As soon as someone opens their mouth to speak their mind and try to rationalize (even when they're doing it wrong or illogical), it's still philosophy. Anyone who is open for a discussion is by default in the philosophical field; on a layman’s level perhaps, but still in that field.

 

All apologetics are using philosophy, and should be considered philosophers, even though they use a lot of fallacious arguments. But that has every philosopher done sometime. Philosophy is not really a science set in stone; it’s the travel and the search, very much like life, and it’s changed and complemented over time. A lot of philosophers between 300 CE and 1500 CE were Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are full of double talk.

 

If atheist don’t say “chance” is the reason we are here, just how do they explain it.

 

Evolution? Then what started the evolutionary process?

 

Romans 1 is saying common sense points to God. Even if you chose not to believe in the God of the Holy Bible, surely you must apply common sense at some point and realize that nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.

 

Something had to generate that “big bang”. There is a point in the history of the universe where time did equal 0. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research. You wouldn’t believe me anyway.

 

Whatever created the universe and the point where T=0, must exist outside of our concept of time and space.

 

You can call that whatever anything you like, I like the term God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something had to generate that “big bang”.

[...]

Whatever created the universe and the point where T=0...

 

Unsupported assertions will not help you. Dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are full of double talk.

Well so are you. You believe in the unseen and unproven, based on an emotion. You don’t believe in chance, yet you believe in free will.

 

If atheist don’t say “chance” is the reason we are here, just how do they explain it.

Evolution? Then what started the evolutionary process?

I guess that should be another topic. But randomness and uncertainty does exist. I think that MrNeil was referring to “chance” in the concept of evolution, where evolution is guided by natural laws and not just by chance. And you are referring to chance as the random event of a Big Bang that eventually lead to life.

 

Romans 1 is saying common sense points to God. Even if you chose not to believe in the God of the Holy Bible, surely you must apply common sense at some point and realize that nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.

But God according to you is “Something”, the same way as the universe is “something”. Why do you go in a circle, explaining that something must come from something, and that something has to be God? If God is something he must come from something too, and not from nothing.

 

Something had to generate that “big bang”. There is a point in the history of the universe where time did equal 0. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research. You wouldn’t believe me anyway.

No you’re right. Whatever it was before big bang, it was a singularity with no Time. Time started to exist at the point of Big Bang.

 

Whatever created the universe and the point where T=0, must exist outside of our concept of time and space.

And if it is so, then the Creator can be a machine, automata and unintelligent just as much. Consciousness is not required.

 

You can call that whatever anything you like, I like the term God.

And that I totally support and respect.

 

And also it means that the Hindus have the right to believe it was Brahman that created the world, or the Muslims that Allah created the world, or the Deists believe that there is an unknown, unexplainable life force that cause it all to happen. And last, Atheists believing the universe started at the Big Bang, and whatever is beyond our knowledge - the unknown - will remain unknown to us and doesn’t have any importance to our living and that unknown doesn’t have to be a conscious being.

 

Nature is not the argument for God, and it doesn’t make an Atheist realize there must be a God. And that is what this topic is about. Nature doesn’t undeniable prove God to an atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear, dear Cerise... thank you for that challenge... and with further consideration... is that not what you have done? Could that not be said of everyone, but eventually they have to work out the bugs?  :scratch:  

 

My dear teacher said to me, "I don't want to be right, I just want to know the Truth." Cerise, is not what is best for you, best for you? :shrug:   It is said that if we are not growing, we are dying. Perhaps all grow to the Light in their own life at the time and where they are? I do believe that we all are wonderful just the way we are and our misgivings are not held against us.... although responsible for them. Additionally, maybe no man is an island unto himself? That's something to deal with!  :wicked:   Boy Cerise, maybe life can be complicated... I guess... and perhaps what does seem to be right is a unique and personal journey?  :scratch:

 

1. smilies are not punctuation. They are usually indications of the amount of seriousness you are alotting to your words. Using so many in a posting...well it says to me you aren't taking it as seriously as you could be. Especially with add ins such as "Boy Cerise, maybe life can be complicated". That kind of thing stinks of condescension to me.

 

2. It could indeed be said of everyone. It could also be said of you.

 

3. could you speak in something that isn't cliched platitudes?

 

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not buying this. Not one little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are full of double talk.

 

If atheist don’t say “chance” is the reason we are here, just how do they explain it.

Explain what? Do you even know what it is that you want us to explain?

 

Let me ask you a question. If I am unable to account for existence, does that make the God concept true? No it doesn't. Whether or not atheists have answers to tough cosmological questions has absolutely no bearing on the truth of theology, especially Christianity.

 

Besides, you still committed the strawman fallacy. Don't try covering it up by asking "Well how do atheists explain this?". The polite thing to do would be to acknowledge your error and move onto something else.

 

 

Evolution? Then what started the evolutionary process?
The phenomenon of life?

 

 

Romans 1 is saying common sense points to God. Even if you chose not to believe in the God of the Holy Bible, surely you must apply common sense at some point and realize that nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.
What is common sense? How do you apply common sense? How does common sense work?

 

 

Something had to generate that “big bang”. There is a point in the history of the universe where time did equal 0. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research. You wouldn’t believe me anyway.
Why don't you just hang a sign around your neck that says, "I don't understand cosmology. Please teach me."?

 

Something doesn't "start" the big bang, unless you're saying something started time. How do you start time? With time?!

 

 

Whatever created the universe and the point where T=0, must exist outside of our concept of time and space.
Which would make it inert. Anyone got that Occam's razor handy?

 

Or are you saying that God might have his own space/time continuum? It doesn't matter, really. Both answers are wrong, because either way, you're going to run into an inescapable paradox.

 

 

You can call that whatever anything you like, I like the term God.
So where is this scientific evidence that points to a creator? I asked you about this, and you never answered me.

 

You still fail to see my point about accounting for existence. God does not solve this problem. He makes it works. Observe...

 

In a universe without a god, the universe exists uncreated. But in a universe in with a god, then god exists uncreated. Either way, something exists uncreated. So why do we have this extra thing? Why don't we get rid of it and just say "the universe"?

 

And I love how Christians answer this problem. "If God had a creator, then he wouldn't be God." Mmm-hmm... Heard that one a hundred times. The fallacy of special pleading. God is exempt from the argument of origin that is used to "prove" his existence.

 

occam_razor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is common sense? How do you apply common sense?  How does common sense work?

 

:grin:

So True! What is common sense? It has to be “Common” be Common Sense.

If we don’t agree on things, then we don’t have a sense of what is common, so Common Sense doesn’t exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is common sense? How do you apply common sense?  How does common sense work?

 

And how would he know? :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will play the devils advocate for a little bit here.

So, ok, here goes…

 

I will take the argument that Nature proves God a little step further.

 

Nature, as we all know, shows the rules and laws that God has established in our world. When we lift something up and drop it, it will fall to the ground. A tree is planted in the ground, and not just flying in the air. Only birds or airplanes can fly, but that’s because of aerodynamic principles and not because they suspend gravity as a force, it only counter balances it.

 

Wouldn’t it be right then to say, that it’s impossible that the planet is hanging in the nothingness without a firm foundation to stand on? We can not believe that Earth is just a ball, flying around, unless is held up by something. This means that our Earth either is solidly founded with pillars or upheld with Gods own hand, so it won’t fall down and crash.

 

Ok, back to normal.

 

This is the kind of arguments Copernicus and Galileo faced when they described their findings about the universe. The Church in its belief couldn’t accept new physical laws that would contradict their old fashioned beliefs. Why is that? It was because they saw nature and used their “common sense” to reason about the higher functions of the universe. A small mind couldn’t think outside the box, and wouldn’t accept things that were greater than he were able to understand.

 

I would say the argument that “God must exist” follows the same reasoning. Just because we don’t know something, or don’t understand something, it doesn’t automatically mean it must be God doing it.

 

The difference between religion and science is that religion starts with a question, makes an assumption, and feels satisfied with the answer, without further validating its actuality. Religious people deny the further investigation of the truth, based on it’s presumption that nothing else needs to be found.

 

Now sciences starts with the same question, makes an assumption, but then tests it, prove it, recreates it and if something is wrong it changes it. The assumptions in science are modified over time to fit better as explanations, and eventually become theories and laws.

 

If you compare two systems, one where God is the creator, and one where the Universe just exists, the easiest explanation is the one with fewest steps. Which is Universe just exists. We need no further explanations or agents in the system until we find something that proves us wrong. Until then, God is assumed non-existent.

 

So back to the Biblical statement that “Nature proves God”, to me it doesn’t, it only proves that Nature is Nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take this a step even further.

 

If “Nature proves God”, then look at everything we see is created by someone that is visible. That means that God must be visible, and yet I don’t see him. So he can’t exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are entirely TOO funny.

 

You call yourselves “free thinkers” yet you are NOT allowed to think of a beginning to the universe because that implies a Beginner.

 

When Einstein’s own work was used to prove the universe had a beginning it flipped him out so much that he tried to add a “fudge factor” to his own equations. He later considered this “fudge factor” the biggest mistake of his career.

 

Eventually Einstein grudging accepted "the necessity for a beginning" (his words) and also "the presence of a superior reasoning power" (again, his words).

 

Is there anyone here still trying to cling to the hope that the universe is eternal????

 

The universe had a beginning. That isn’t just me and Einstein saying that, it is countless men and women from various fields of science (astronomy, physics, etc.). But don’t take my word for it, do your own research.

 

Despite all the evidence, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the universe was created. Atheists are not “free” to think in terms of creation because that threatens an encounter with God. That is what Romans 1 is all about and presupposition has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is mounting scientific proof that the universe was created, thus a Creator. Romans chapter 1 is not about presupposition, it is about opening your eyes to all that is around you. Whether you believe in the Holy Bible’s God or not, you eventually must acknowledge something had to create all of this.

 

What you don't get invictus1967, is that even if you are correct, and there is indeed a god.....

 

It's no proof of Christianity.

It doesn't validate the bible.

It doesn't validate any world religion.

It doesn't prove the existence of an afterlife for us when we die.

It doesn't even indicate the degree of current involvement this being has with our world.

It doesn't prove the existence of Jesus as son of this god.

It doesn't prove homosexuals are immoral.

It doesn't prove the Genesis story.

It doesn't prove evolution wrong.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING.

 

Christians come on here like proving the existence of god proves they are right about everything else....when all the same questions still remain because we still don't know the ultimate purpose of the universe according to such a being. Our role may not be as significant as the christians may imagine.

 

Thus making the argument of the basic existence of god completely irrelevant. Because proving existence does not accordingly prove purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are entirely TOO funny.

 

You call yourselves “free thinkers” yet you are NOT allowed to think of a beginning to the universe because that implies a Beginner.

 

When Einstein’s own work was used to prove the universe had a beginning it flipped him out so much that he tried to add a “fudge factor” to his own equations. He later considered this “fudge factor” the biggest mistake of his career.

 

Eventually Einstein grudging accepted "the necessity for a beginning" (his words) and also "the presence of a superior reasoning power" (again, his words).

 

Is there anyone here still trying to cling to the hope that the universe is eternal????

 

The universe had a beginning. That isn’t just me and Einstein saying that, it is countless men and women from various fields of science (astronomy, physics, etc.). But don’t take my word for it, do your own research.

 

Despite all the evidence, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the universe was created. Atheists are not “free” to think in terms of creation because that threatens an encounter with God. That is what Romans 1 is all about and presupposition has nothing to do with it.

 

 

Aren't you the same "invictus" who was here on the old board? Didn't you get your assed handed to you by Neil and others on this site so many times before? Do you think this time shall be any differen't, or can you just not face up to the fact that you have been totally pwned... :scratch:

 

Your idiocy is entirely TOO funny. By all means, keep bringing fuel to the fire little presupper. :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry for being a simplistic bubblehead, invictus. but let me just try and see if I can understand what you are saying:

 

1. It is impossible for the universe to not have had a beginning.

 

2. Therefore, it was created

 

3. By a God, who is infinitely more complex than the universe, who had no beginning.

 

I'm kind of a moron about these matters, but this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are entirely TOO funny.

 

You call yourselves “free thinkers” yet you are NOT allowed to think of a beginning to the universe because that implies a Beginner.

A beginning does NOT imply a Beginner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Jump as much as you want but you’re not starting an earthquake!

 

It’s not that it’s not allowed to think about for anyone of us, because we are arguing with you about it, so we are obviously thinking about it to argue with you!

 

It’s just a matter of there no reason to believe in GOD. There is no creator, so why think there is one. I have no problem with a “Cause”, but there is a difference in an Intelligent Cause and a Non-intelligent Cause. I just don’t think there is a necessity to enforce a belief system unto my brain that I just can’t believe. Why is it that you think that we somehow KNOW there is a GOD, but refuse to BELIEVE it. We just do not think or believe there is a GOD, because nothing points too it! Do you get it! I’m open minded but you have to PROVE to me that GOD exists, then I’ll believe. But as long as you CAN’T prove it, there is NO NEED to believe it.

 

I have a reason to wait for you and God to prove God to me. The reason is that there are conflicting religions and conflicting dogmas in the Christian church. There is not one single faith you can take and accept as the ultimate truth. Every one has their own little version of faith, so it’s totally accepted that you can believe whatever you want. So I’m waiting for the truth to be revealed before I make the jump to believe it… Do I have to be Christian while I’m waiting? If I use Pascal’s waiver, the answer would be yes, but that means I have more to gain to become a Muslim. So I stand on the sideline and waiting for you to prove God to me…

 

There is a chance that the IPU exists, so therefore you should believe in it too. A Free Thinker acknowledges the beliefs of different kinds, and accepts different faiths, but doesn’t require anyone to adapt themselves to one single one.

 

In my opinion there was a beginning, before the universe. I actually believe in the new brane theory. There are multiple universes, parallel to ours. They collided and an enormous flow of energy came from the membrane between. That is my personal belief, and YOU tell me I HAVE TO believe in GOD, because THAT IS YOUR BELIEF.

 

Do you have the stomach to call you, yourself Freethinker, and think outside your box for two seconds, or is your religious dogma so strongly inflicted in your brain that you can not extract you reasoning away from it?

 

When Einstein’s own work was used to prove the universe had a beginning it flipped him out so much that he tried to add a “fudge factor” to his own equations. He later considered this “fudge factor” the biggest mistake of his career.

 

Eventually Einstein grudging accepted "the necessity for a beginning" (his words) and also "the presence of a superior reasoning power" (again, his words).

 

Is there anyone here still trying to cling to the hope that the universe is eternal????

 

The universe had a beginning. That isn’t just me and Einstein saying that, it is countless men and women from various fields of science (astronomy, physics, etc.). But don’t take my word for it, do your own research.

 

Despite all the evidence, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the universe was created. Atheists are not “free” to think in terms of creation because that threatens an encounter with God. That is what Romans 1 is all about and presupposition has nothing to do with it.

 

Again, listen, there is a beginning to the Universe in its current shape, form, timeline and physical laws. Ok. So does that prove that God exists? No! It doesn’t. So give me the proof that shows that God exists before you say anything else.

 

You’re making a leap of reasoning, here it goes:

 

Beginning = Created

 

That is a leap of faith and not reason.

 

 

 

1. Every created thing in your household has been created by a visible person or machine.

 

2. So if the world was created by God, God must be visible.

 

3. I don’t see God.

 

Hence God does not exist or he didn’t create the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people are entirely TOO funny.

 

You call yourselves “free thinkers” yet you are NOT allowed to think of a beginning to the universe because that implies a Beginner.

 

You obviously don't understand the word Free Thinker.

 

It means: I'm totally free to not to think the way the Bible tells me to think.

And it’s my choice to believe whatever I think is right.

 

That's a free thinker.

 

You take the attitude that you have all the answers and the whole truth, don’t you?

How sickening prideful of you. You approach this subject with an excellent reduction of you free will to choose your thought. Maybe you need to step down from the soap box and think, just a bit. Not too long, because I don’t want to be responsible for your brain to blow up in smokes.

 

This is your argument: Beginning = Creator

 

Well let’s see then, which Creator then… Ah, the Bible Creator of course, the one with Jesus next to him. It couldn’t be Allah could it?

 

No your argument must be like this:

Beginning = Creator = Christian God

 

While this is my faith:

Beginning = Unknown and Probably Unintelligent Cause = Still Unknown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're still missing the point of this discussion!

 

It's not about the Cosmological Argument!

 

The question is “Does Atheists believe in God, because Nature says so”

 

So answer me instead, does Nature, the wild park that I see through my window, does it prove to ME that God exists? You tell me.

 

I can give you a hint.

 

The answer is: NO!

 

Now, disprove that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all the evidence, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the universe was created. Atheists are not “free” to think in terms of creation because that threatens an encounter with God. That is what Romans 1 is all about and presupposition has nothing to do with it.

 

Explain to me then, why I don't believe? I just don't believe, why?

I don't believe in God, why is that? If Rom 1 is right, I should believe, but deny against my belief. But I don't believe, so how? I used to believe, but I don't anymore, and that was after a long time of angst when I didn't want to loose my faith, and still I did. So explain that!

 

I really didn't choose to lose my faith. It vanished, against my own will!

I COULND'T Believe anymore. Even if you used the largest mallet you have and try to bang it into my head, I just can't believe anymore. It's not my fault, I can't help it!

 

If you want a Spiritual reason for this I can give it to you freely:

God miraculously took my faith away, against my prayers.

 

So, are you happy now? I managed to get God into the picture to why I don’t believe. He TOOK IT AWAY! That’s the only religious explanation there is.

 

Or I can take the natural explanation, faith and believe is just figments of our imagination, and notions of our need to believe in things to explain the phenomena we can’t understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see an additional aspect to the term freethinker. I think what I think and believe the way I do right now because it makes the most sense to me and I've reasoned it out after looking at all sides..

 

I am free to change anything that I believe in without being inhibited by any god or group of people or pattern of historical thought.

 

Convince me that something I believe in is incorrect, and I'll change the way I think about it.

 

But you might have your work cut out convincing me.

 

Fool me once.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, the Romans 1 argument is that all people, regardless of what they say, are aware that God is.

 

The only reasons for not following this God, of whom everyone is aware, is due to

1. Deception by the devil

2 Hardness of heart

3. Deceitfulness of sin

4. Rebellion and refusal to bow down to God, in essence making yourself God.

 

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

 

The truth is that everyone, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, is doubtful of God's existence to one degree or another. Some will never ever ever admit to it, but it's the truth. Everyone has doubts about whether it's true or not.

 

If this wasn't true, then why would Christians have to be so careful about what they read and think? If they were 100% convinced of their beliefs, nothing but nothing could sway them. It's a very fragile thing, this faith.

 

Some of the most honest, brave people on the face of the earth are ex-christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you people trying to argue that the universe was started from nothing by nothing?

 

Although I do believe in the Holy Bible, I never once argued for a Christian God. I simply argued for a creator, a creator I call God. Not Bible God or Christian God, I simply argued for the existence of God.

 

I believe science when they tell me the universe had a beginning. Common sense tells me that in order for anything to be created (like a universe for example) there must be something to create the creation.

 

My point is that Romans 1 is simply stating you see the evidence of God by way of His creation.

 

You try to bash me but you have no counter arguments.

 

Please feel free to enlighten me. Tell me how science is wrong and the universe doesn’t have a beginning.

 

Or, explain how the universe came into existence from NOTHING by NOTHING.

 

If your only argument is “I don’t like yours” then you have no argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Invictus, but you didn't answer either of my challenges.

 

The first challenge was the back up your claim about "mounting scientific evidence" for creation. I'm still waiting for you to answer this challenge. If you can't answer, then why did you say it?

 

The second challenge was to solve the problem of existence. If any form of existence can exist without a creator, then the necessity of a creator for existence is falsified. If God can exist uncreated, then why not the universe?

 

Why do you insist on having a fifth wheel? Please answer without committing the fallacy of special pleading. Your argument, in its current state, will never work as long as you keep insisting on attributing the origin of the universe to a hypothetical construct that, in itself has no origin. Your worthless explanation of a god who creates a universe is easily reducible to simply a universe as long as you keep using the fallacy of special pleading.

 

And if you could, please answer in a way that is not evasive. I so get tired of having to ask the same question over and over. I'm really not in a mood for games today and have a major chip on my shoulder at the moment. If you just want to reply with insults, then I'll have no alternative but to alert a mod.

 

I don't necessarily mind that you insult me, but please try to have some sort of argument in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.