Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

God as the first cause.


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#21 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,656 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 6 March 2012 - 04:58 AM

Do they leave behind any evidence of their existence? No.

But there is evidence that's unaccounted for. Like our finite universe and why it began. So it's a free for all until we can answer a few questions.

P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against.

The point I believe you may be missing, Appolinaria, is that one cannot prove universal nonexistence. It's an impossible request, and is used merely to evade the burden of proof which is implicitly held by the one making a positive claim. It's really nothing but hand-waving... smoke and mirrors... a "hey, look over there!" while the person runs away...

Further, it's not about "ganging up" or "battling theists," but instead about holding their theological claims to the same standards to which we hold all other claims. Claims of the theist deserve no special deference, and frankly the fact they don't receive unearned deference or respect does not ipso facto mean people are "doing exactly what they claim to be against."

Let's please try to maintain some perspective here. You're basically pointing and laughing and going "hahaha... tee hee hee... silly atheists..." when in fact you appear to be operating under a misapprehension.


http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.


  • 0

#22 Appolinaria

Appolinaria

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 854 posts

Posted 6 March 2012 - 05:09 AM

The point I believe you may be missing, Appolinaria, is that one cannot prove universal nonexistence. It's an impossible request, and is used merely to evade the burden of proof which is implicitly held by the one making a positive claim. It's really nothing but hand-waving... smoke and mirrors... a "hey, look over there!" while the person runs away...

Further, it's not about "ganging up" or "battling theists," but instead about holding their theological claims to the same standards to which we hold all other claims. Claims of the theist deserve no special deference, and frankly the fact they don't receive unearned deference or respect does not ipso facto mean people are "doing exactly what they claim to be against."

Let's please try to maintain some perspective here. You're basically pointing and laughing and going "hahaha... tee hee hee... silly atheists..." when in fact you appear to be operating under a misapprehension.


http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm



There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe.
  • 0


#23 doG

doG

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 2,051 posts
  • Location33.78N 84.66W

Posted 6 March 2012 - 05:43 AM

There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe.

That's not evidence of a cause, only that the universe exists. You might as well claim that since the universe exists it must have been conjured up by leprechuans. The point you seem to be missing between theists and scientists is that theists want to conclude there was a creator while scientists just want to theorize how it might have happened without drawing conclusions. Theists want to declare the truth without looking for it and scientists want to look for the truth before declaring it.
  • 1

doG

-- Science is about facts regardless of belief, Religion is about belief, regardless of the facts. --
-- If atheism is a religion, then "bald" is a hair color. --

-- The dyslexic agnostic insomniac atheist stays up at night wondering if there is a doG. --


#24 Appolinaria

Appolinaria

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 854 posts

Posted 6 March 2012 - 05:53 AM

The point you seem to be missing between theists and scientists is that theists want to conclude there was a creator while scientists just want to theorize how it might have happened without drawing conclusions.


I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.


Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists.
  • -1


#25 doG

doG

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 2,051 posts
  • Location33.78N 84.66W

Posted 6 March 2012 - 05:59 AM

I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.

Theorizing there was a creator is one thing, declaring there was one is another. Theists have zero evidence to support any conclusion of a creator.

Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists.

Yes and no. You can't lump all atheists together because they are really just non-theists. But most non-theists are non-theists because the are not willing to draw a conclusion with evidence, something scientists require. Theists on the other hand want you to buy their story as fact without any burden of proof so they are not scientists at all.
  • 0

doG

-- Science is about facts regardless of belief, Religion is about belief, regardless of the facts. --
-- If atheism is a religion, then "bald" is a hair color. --

-- The dyslexic agnostic insomniac atheist stays up at night wondering if there is a doG. --


#26 John Cuthber

John Cuthber

    Chemistry Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,821 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 6 March 2012 - 07:18 AM

A viable hypothesis is that the universe was made by the Devil. That would certainly explain why it's a mess.
The existence of the universe is evidence for this hypothesis to exactly the same extent that it is evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
However, if the Devil made the universe then- plainly, God didn't.
So the existence of the universe, by being evidence of the Devil as a creator is evidence for the non-existence of the Christian God.

So, you are claiming evidence of His not existing as being evidence that He exists.

Do you have evidence that actually makes sense?
  • 1
What's this signature thingy then? Did you know Santa only brings presents to people who click the + sign? -->

#27 Appolinaria

Appolinaria

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 854 posts

Posted 6 March 2012 - 07:44 AM

Um, what?
  • 1


#28 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 4,511 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 6 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

There is no missing evidence. The evidence is our universe.

But the universe's very existence is only evidence for the universe existing - not for (continued or temporary) existence of a creator. As the existence of the universe is a given - then any logical sequence that relies on it must be exclusive and logically sound - ie it cannot rest on an assertion.

I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe. Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.

"If the universe exists it must have a creator (of any form)" is not accepted. It is a good debate - and it is undecidable; for sure the existence of the universe cannot be used as evidence as this is part of the proposition (ie petitio principii/begging the question).

Also, it seems a little ignorant to regard all scientists as atheists. It's theists vs. atheists, not theists vs. scientists.

No; this is a logical fallacy masquerading as a proof and as such you do not need to be an atheist to call it such.



Um, what?

Yrreg initial proposition works just as well with every mention of God replaced with Devil (this is why it is not evidence).
  • 1

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#29 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,656 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 6 March 2012 - 05:42 PM

I see no difference. A creator doesn't have to be human-like, nor must it have anything to do with any religion on this planet. It's just responsible for our universe.

Do you have any other completely unfounded baseless assertions you'd like to make, or are you content just to leave it with this one? Perhaps you want to say that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns and have us accept that as fact, too?

Whether you deem this explanation scientific, or religious, is not my problem.

Well, it really is, though... if you actually expect any of us to take you seriously.

Um, what?

Just an observation... If you're struggling to understand and comprehend the points of others, you might consider limiting the number of times you blanketly dismiss their posts and make unsupported assertions of your own as if they are somehow absolute. Your response are akin to, "I can't grasp what you mean, but I know you are wrong." It looks silly, and I know you're better than that.
  • 1

#30 John Cuthber

John Cuthber

    Chemistry Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,821 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 6 March 2012 - 06:44 PM

Um, what?

Which part did you not understand? I will try to explain it more slowly.

I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote that because I had a bus to catch.
  • 0
What's this signature thingy then? Did you know Santa only brings presents to people who click the + sign? -->

#31 yrreg

yrreg

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 08:08 PM

[...]

There is no evidence that God exists.
If He does exist, what caused him to exist?



I am talking about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

You must first state that there is no first cause, and then say that there is no evidence of any such existence as a first cause, except the concept, or even the concept itself of the first cause is an invalid concept.

But you have strayed from the topic by asking a question which is also irrelevant, what caused God to exist if He does exist.

Please think about the concept of a first cause from which all things originated directly or indirectly by intermediate causes which came from the first cause.


Please abstain from asking a question that is irrelevant to the topic.

And please also acquaint yourself with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, this concept of God precludes the question what or who caused God -- for if anything or anyone caused this God then this God is not God, not in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Now, if you have another concept of God which concept is not the one in the Christian faith and not in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator everything in the universe that is not Himself, then you are not dealing with God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I am talking about the first cause and God as the first cause, with the concept of God as understood in the Christian faith.



Yrreg
  • 0

#32 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 8,298 posts
  • LocationSouth Eastern North Carolina

Posted 7 March 2012 - 08:18 PM

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

-----------------------


Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.



Yrreg


Let me get this straight, first you want us to assume that not only is there a god but he is the christian god and that he has always existed and you want us to assume he is the cause of everything in the universe.... what is your point? If we assume all those things there is no debate only agreement.
  • 0
Life is the poetry of the Universe
Love is the poetry of life

You do not possess belief, belief possesses you...

I'm always open to new ideas, I just don't let them crawl into my skull and take a dump... 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson

Check out my YouTube channel here.



If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->

#33 John Cuthber

John Cuthber

    Chemistry Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 9,821 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 7 March 2012 - 08:35 PM

I am talking about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

You must first state that there is no first cause, and then say that there is no evidence of any such existence as a first cause, except the concept, or even the concept itself of the first cause is an invalid concept.

But you have strayed from the topic by asking a question which is also irrelevant, what caused God to exist if He does exist.

Please think about the concept of a first cause from which all things originated directly or indirectly by intermediate causes which came from the first cause.


Please abstain from asking a question that is irrelevant to the topic.

And please also acquaint yourself with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, this concept of God precludes the question what or who caused God -- for if anything or anyone caused this God then this God is not God, not in the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Now, if you have another concept of God which concept is not the one in the Christian faith and not in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator everything in the universe that is not Himself, then you are not dealing with God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I am talking about the first cause and God as the first cause, with the concept of God as understood in the Christian faith.



Yrreg


Also please acquaint yourself with the concept of this logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question
  • 0
What's this signature thingy then? Did you know Santa only brings presents to people who click the + sign? -->

#34 yrreg

yrreg

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 09:25 PM

yrreg, on 4 March 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:


I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

-----------------------


Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.



Yrreg



Let me get this straight, first you want us to assume that not only is there a god but he is the christian god and that he has always existed and you want us to assume he is the cause of everything in the universe.... what is your point? If we assume all those things there is no debate only agreement.


-----------------------


Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions?

What is a pure assumption?


First, by way of illustration:

There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys.

The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman.

That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption.


A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all.

An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation.



The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption.

It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about.


So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption.

Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge.



Yrreg

*See, http://www.cfpf.org..../br/br_god.html
  • 0

#35 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 7 March 2012 - 09:38 PM

-----------------------


Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions?

What is a pure assumption?


First, by way of illustration:

There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys.

The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman.

That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption.


A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all.

An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation.



The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption.

It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about.


So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption.

Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge.



Yrreg

*See, http://www.cfpf.org..../br/br_god.html


Come on, this is rubbish

I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe
  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#36 yrreg

yrreg

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 09:55 PM

Title of thread: "God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God."

I just came from the chat room with an attempt to get people to exchange thoughts with me about God as the first cause; then suddenly my words did not come out anymore, and I tried to post the same words again, and they did not come out anymore -- and I could not send anymore words for they don't appear anymore in the chat room when I press 'Enter'.

So I left the chat room, feeling that perhaps there is some trouble or the chat room of sfn does not allow my kind of thoughts to come out, namely about God as the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.

-----------------------


Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.



Yrreg





Is there evidence for God?

Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.


However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God.


Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God.




Yrreg

yrreg, on 7 March 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

[...]

Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions?

What is a pure assumption?


First, by way of illustration:

There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys.

The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman.

That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption.


A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all.

An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation.



The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption.

It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about.


So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption.

Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge.



Yrreg

*See, http://www.cfpf.org..../br/br_god.html



Come on, this is rubbish

I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe





Please define rabbits.




Yrreg
  • 0

#37 Keenidiot

Keenidiot

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 70 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 10:03 PM

P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against.


Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides, that's all that matters.

Is there evidence for God?

Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.


However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God.


Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God.




Yrreg





Please define rabbits.




Yrreg


Please define "cheese."
  • 0

#38 Tres Juicy

Tres Juicy

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 730 posts
  • LocationSwindon, UK

Posted 7 March 2012 - 10:19 PM

Is there evidence for God?

Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.


Circular reasoning

However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God.

Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God.


This is just weak but I'll play along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God


Please define rabbits.

Yrreg


Really?! use google...
  • 0

A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk

Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer


#39 Appolinaria

Appolinaria

    Protist

  • Senior Members
  • 854 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 10:21 PM

[/size]
[size=2] Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides


nice try. by "crazy theists" i was expressing how a lot of atheists view theists. i could be considered a theist. if you actually read my posts youd take note of that.
  • 0


#40 yrreg

yrreg

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 7 March 2012 - 11:12 PM


P.S.- It's entertaining to watch when atheists all team up to battle the crazy theists, not realizing they're doing exactly what they claim to be against.


Well, as long as you've found a way to feel superiority to both sides, that's all that matters.

yrreg, on 7 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Is there evidence for God?

Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.


However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God.


Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God.




Yrreg


Come on, this is rubbish

I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe.



Please define rabbits.



Yrreg



Please define "cheese."






Please abstain from flippancy, it is not worthy of a serious poster.


If you have no definition of what is evidence and have no concept of what is God and also give their respective examples, just read; but don't go into flippancy.



It is of the utmost importance for viable and productive exchange of thoughts that posters who use a term for its substance in the advancement of their position should be ready to define the term, otherwise they should abstain from bringing in the term.


One such term is evidence.

Atheists are always demanding evidence for God's existence.



I bring in the concept of first cause and also of God, and I have defined them.


Originally posted by Yrreg post #1
http://www.sciencefo...post__p__662706

[...]

I am now here in the general philosophy board, and I hope that it is all right to start a thread here on God as the first cause, and seek other people's thoughts on that question.


[Concept of God:] Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

[Concept of first cause:] As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.



So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence.

And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever.




Yrreg

To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words.

Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite.


Otherwise you cannot really convince people of the worth of your reference and also more significantly its relevancy to the question by just giving the link.

Reproduce the text you refer to as definition of a term or as an authority or also as an opinion akin to yours, or better and best, say in your own words the thought of the text you give a web link to.

In this way you will show people that you have read your referred to web text or outside the web source, and have understood it adequately as to be able to re-state its thought content in your own verbal formulation.



Yrreg
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users