Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What is the difference between Agnostic and Atheist?

What made God?

Summing up: You are a broken record. By "evidence," in every case you mean scientific and empirical evidence. That view makes a god of science. You overlook the fact that we use other kinds of evidence all the time, and even scientific evidence is lacking conclusiveness. Inconclusive is not proof of anything. I don't know whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist. You only argue the agnostic position but you do it with the insistence of the atheist.

You think all the evidence proves the non-existence of God, so you put yourself in the position of judge and prosecutor, overruling any evidence but what you introduce. You require someone who believes in God to use that evidence to prove his position. The trouble with that is that then you become the jury -- and you declare yourself winner of the debate. The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence. He only cares to show you that you do not need to come to the conclusion you have reached. If someone could convince you -- with only the evidence you lay on the table -- that God exists, that he created everything, that he is sovereign, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he's coming back, none of that would gain you one millimeter of standing with God.

When this becomes a debate over who is smarter, which your previous ad hominum arguments suggest you think it is, you apparently think the question of the existence of God is a question that only the people you regard as most intelligent have any real suasion. The problem with that is that lots of believing people are smarter than you are. That's no problem for you -- you simply fall back on an ad hominem argument. Being smart is irrelevant. Chances are you're not even the smartest person on a discussion forum. You lost this debate a long time ago.

Steve.

The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

For those who depend on facts to prove Gods existence.

You mean facts that can be scientifically proven. Where did science come from? Did it come from man or God? If you say it came from man because there is no God, then where did men come from? Oh yes, an explosion that created life? How is that scientific. There is no proof. Science depends on truths that are predictable and repeatable. Show me. Recreate life for me. Then I will believe in your 'facts'.

This question is like asking to whom is the bachelor married? Or who was that dead man speaking to? It makes no sense. God is Infinite! He didn't make Himself. He Is.

A-S- please don't make the mistake of thinking that many folks here are at all concerned about what "makes no sense" to you personally. That is your problem, not theirs.

Your posts indicate to some that you are stuck in a small closed loop - or - is it a tight downward spiral? To an extent, I am surprised with the patience and effort extended to you in this thread. I see that as good behavior toward another person, but now feel that you have been given quite a bit more attention than deserved - particularly if your primary goal is to get attention.

Whether you are seeking argument, affirmation, confirmation, or simple attention - the mistake has been mine. Bye.

NT was in Greek, and who invented paper?

We are so complex we require a creator, but the most complex being ever, does not?

That is what makes no sense.

Faith and objective reasoning are quite frequently at odds due to the nature of both.

Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.

Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.

As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.

When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.

However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.

No God, no supernatural, just physics.

a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable

However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero.

No matter how much you want nothing to be something, nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist so nothing can be stable or unstable.

With the dominos illustration you are neglecting the hours spent by a much greater intelligence setting them up to accomplish a preplanned organized desired effect.

Your faith is admirable, but misplaced in hoping nothing can do anything.

In this post you are not starting with nothing. You are starting with unintelligent space; which Einstien and others have said is a fabric. On the otherhand Creationists start by accepting the basic premise of science: Cause and effect. The Creator, possessing all energy and intelligence, called space and time into being by His Power.



That was something you suggested. I don't believe the total effect must be zero.

Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.

Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.

As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.

When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.

However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.

No God, no supernatural, just physics.