Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

waa-waa-waa.
Stop having a sook and just answer the question.

Is that the best you can come up with? A 'sook'. "waa-waa-waa". That's childish rubbish. Merely addressing comments you make.

The question is not difficult.

Of course the question is difficult unless you define what "God" is. Only then can you ask "Does God have to be made of something to exist?” which is to do with the form of "God". If the first is unknowable then certainly the second is.

If the question is not difficult why don't you answer it?

Nowhere did I mention religion or what religious people say.

You said "So when you religious Atheists rail against God, you're railing against something you first need defined for you?"

And it was pointed out to you that any "railing" was against the claims of people to the "truth" of "God", including claims to "God's" form. Theists make claims to the definition of "God" via their various religious texts.

Genesis 1:27 being an example.

You ask a question and then refuse to clarify what you mean when others ask.

I'm not asking you to twist my question into something you want to answer.

It's quite simple. Define "God". I can't define "God". "God", as to its existence or form, is unknowable despite the claims of various people and organsations to the contrary. That "God" even exists is a claim to truth that cannot be substantiated. "God could exist in any form, but no one knows what form is or even of its' existance.

If you can't just say so. If you don't want to. No probs.

I've made it clear what you need to do. And you refuse to do it.

Parrotting all that other sh*t that's been done a thousand times in this thread isn't what I asked.

Then stop asking the same question that already been discussed ad-nauseum.

 

[Number37]

Anyone got any rails?
Not arksing for a friend!

No need to get narky.
It is extraordinary, but not surprising, how Atheists get all defensive about nothing.
Don't even have to mention relgion and the Atheists start going off their nut because that's what rational people do, apparently.
I'm rational but I'll present only emotive arguments. LOL

What do you reckon?

Cosmic Background Radiation together with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis provide the formulas to explain everything that we know about the universe.

String theory is an attempt to explain things before Big Bang, but it is entirely speculative.
There is no randomness in anything in the universe. Everything happened just the way it was meant to, which is also consistent with scientific principles/theory. It if wasn't then we wouldn't have been able to reverse engineer it to figure out it all started with Big Bang.

I asked this question before and it was overrun by the usual array of Atheist claptrap.
Unexplained events, as opposed to explained events.
Repeat, UNEXPLAINED.
On what basis can you say that God, not God as defined by religion, just God, is not an explanation for those unexplained events?

 

[Number37]

Is that the best you can come up with? A 'sook'. Merely addressing comments you make.



Of course the question is difficult unless you define what "God" is. Only then can you ask "Does God have to be made of something to exist?” which is to do with the form of "God". If the first is unknowable then certainly the second is.

If the question is not difficult why don't you answer it?



You said "So when you religious Atheists rail against God, you're railing against something you first need defined for you?"

And it was pointed out to you that any "railing" was against the claims of people to the "truth" of "God", including claims to "God's" form. Theists make claims to the definition of "God" via their various religious texts.

Genesis 1:27 being an example.

You ask a question and then refuse to clarify what you mean when others ask.



It's quite simple. Define "God". I can't define "God". "God", as to its existence or form, is unknowable despite the claims of various people and organsations to the contrary. That "God" even exists is a claim to truth that cannot be substantiated. "God could exist in any form, but no one knows what form is or even of its' existance.



I've made it clear what you need to do. And you refuse to do it.



Then stop asking the same question that already been discussed ad-nauseum.

You could have just said I don't want to answer the question. It is so simple.
Why do you need to embark on this entire charade?
The answer is obvious and not worth wasting any more time over.

 

[Roylion]

On what basis can you say that God, not God as defined by religion, just God, is not an explanation for those unexplained events?

You can't. But neither can you say that "God" is an explanation for those unexplained events. As some people claim that it is.

 

[Osho]

No, it doesn't.

What is this thing that Atheists are so sure doesn't exist?
Is it just God as per religious texts?

Having straddled both extremes at different times, atheist and religious, and other hybrid positions, I feel well qualified to answer question poorly, but at least I won't be playing any monkey games.

I think the god that I once refuted was the christian one, that is, a first mover, the cause that wasn't caused, that preceded time (how's that for a nonsequitor?), that has always existed, and that has a will, a personality, and an interest in its creation, and transcends from the timeless eternal into our time-constrained world, and does stuff from time to time, like raising the dead, answering prayer etc. I still object to much of this chatacterization, but also feel attracted to the first uncaused cause idea, that the past is eternal. But why rhe hell did our time based universe start if there was no intention for it to happen?

 

[Evolved1]

My question wasn't about my definition of God it was about yours.
Surely you must have one if you are railing against it.

I'm an antitheist which means I oppose organised religion. I have no issue with any gods because there's no reason to think they're real.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The onus is on the theist to present evidence for their god.

 

[bfff]

You have misunderstood what I said.

Is the premise of your question that these things are not matter, therefore, because an atheist would believe in their existence they should accept that an immaterial god could also exist?

There is evidence of their material nature or their effect on objects with material nature. If there was evidence of a “god” that had such effects then an atheist would have to acknowledge its existence but in all probability would disagree with it being defined as a god.

Which leads us back around to Roylion’s question, how do you define a god? How do you convince an atheist that such a thing is a god, rather than a force, component of matter, celestial object etc.?

 

[Number37]

Is the premise of your question that these things are not matter, therefore, because an atheist would believe in their existence they should accept that an immaterial god could also exist?

There is evidence of their material nature or their effect on objects with material nature. If there was evidence of a “god” that had such effects then an atheist would have to acknowledge its existence but in all probability would disagree with it being defined as a god.

Which leads us back around to Roylion’s question, how do you define a god? How do you convince an atheist that such a thing is a god, rather than a force, component of matter, celestial object etc.?

Like I said, you misunderstood what I said.
Light, gravity, quarks..not made of anything.
Got nothing to do with religion, God, politics, price of rice in China.

 

[Evolved1]

No need to get narky.
It is extraordinary, but not surprising, how Atheists get all defensive about nothing.
Don't even have to mention relgion and the Atheists start going off their nut because that's what rational people do, apparently.
I'm rational but I'll present only emotive arguments. LOL



Cosmic Background Radiation together with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis provide the formulas to explain everything that we know about the universe.

String theory is an attempt to explain things before Big Bang, but it is entirely speculative.
There is no randomness in anything in the universe. Everything happened just the way it was meant to, which is also consistent with scientific principles/theory. It if wasn't then we wouldn't have been able to reverse engineer it to figure out it all started with Big Bang.

I asked this question before and it was overrun by the usual array of Atheist claptrap.
Unexplained events, as opposed to explained events.
Repeat, UNEXPLAINED.
On what basis can you say that God, not God as defined by religion, just God, is not an explanation for those unexplained events?

Unexplained doesn't mean goddidit. God is a crutch for dishonest people who refuse to admit that they don't know the answers. Fortunately the gaps in which god can hide are getting smaller as knowledge grows.

Have any scientific or archaelogical discoveries pointed to the existence of biblegod? If not, what possible reason is there to think biblegod is a valid explanation for anything?

 

[bfff]

A question for Atheists.

Quarks, light, gravity.

Not made of anything.

Does God have to be made of something to exist?

Like I said, you misunderstood what I said.
Light, gravity, quarks..not made of anything.
Got nothing to do with religion, God, politics, price of rice in China.

You are right, I don’t understand how a question about a god has nothing to do with gods.

 

[Number37]

I'm an antitheist which means I oppose organised religion. I have no issue with any gods because there's no reason to think they're real.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The onus is on the theist to present evidence for their god.

My question isn't about religion either.
I never asserted that religion says there is God.

The question is what do you take God to mean?
So far all I have read is 'whatever religion claims about God, I am against that'.
For so called rational people, you religious Atheists have great difficulty with a very simple question.

 

[Number37]

Unexplained doesn't mean goddidit. God is a crutch for dishonest people who refuse to admit that they don't know the answers. Fortunately the gaps in which god can hide are getting smaller as knowledge grows.

Have any scientific or archaelogical discoveries pointed to the existence of biblegod? If not, what possible reason is there to think biblegod is a valid explanation for anything?

I never said unexplained = godidit.
Is it a possibility that godidit? If no, on what basis did you rule it out?
(for the love of chicken wings please refrain from parrotting that anti-religious stuff, we get it, we got it the other 25000 times its been mentioned)

 

[Number37]

IMO.

Not a single Atheist will concede that it might be a possibility.

 

[Roylion]

Is it a possibility that godidit? If no, on what basis did you rule it out?

I'd say most ruled it out or doubt "God" was responsible because of lack of supporting evidence for such.

Define "God".

 

[Number37]

You are right, I don’t understand how a question about a god has nothing to do with gods.

Light, gravity, quarks....not about God.
But you know that...you're just twisting what I said, like all the others...coz you're so rational and science-y.

 

[bfff]

IMO.

Not a single Atheist will concede that it might be a possibility.

Correct. Atheists don’t believe in the existence of deities. That is the definition of an atheist.

 

[Roylion]

Light, gravity, quarks....not about God.

Your question was" "Does God have to be made of something to exist?”

You used the term "God". If it's not about "God" why did you include the term in your question?

 

[Evolved1]

I never said unexplained = godidit.
Is it a possibility that godidit? If no, on what basis did you rule it out?
(for the love of chicken wings please refrain from parrotting that anti-religious stuff, we get it, we got it the other 25000 times its been mentioned)

As I pointed out to you earlier, lizard people can't be ruled out either. I rule out the possibility of biblegod for the same reason you rule out the possibility the world is run by lizard people.

Most of organised religion is equally insane as the idea of lizard people.

To satisfy you, I will agree that there's a possibility that biblegod is real. The odds are the same as lizard people being real.

Does that satisfy you?

 

[Number37]

I'd say most ruled it out or doubt "God" was responsible because of lack of supporting evidence for such.

Define "God".

That side of Big Bang there is no proof of anything. Quarks never been observed, just theoretical.

So by your logic can we rule everything out....which is clearly absurd.

 

[LFTWNG11]

IMO.

Not a single Atheist will concede that it might be a possibility.

Literally a few posts above this comment....

 

[mikey127]

Is mikey127 still around or is this a meme thread now?

Still here.

 

[Roylion]

That side of Big Bang there is no proof of anything. Quarks never been observed, just theoretical.

That's correct. So therefore we don't accept claims made as 'truth' that quarks actually exist.

So by your logic can we rule everything out....which is clearly absurd.

We can't rule a phenomena in either, until robust, empirical evidence in favor of the existance of said phenomena (such as 'quarks') is discovered, tested extensively and proved conclusively through testable, repeatable, falsifiable experiments.

 

[Coopers]

Still here.

Hey Mikey,

Has reading through this thread caused you to abandon all religion, and indeed, hope?

 

[mikey127]

Hey Mikey,

Has reading through this thread caused you to abandon all religion, and indeed, hope?

No.

 

[Number37]

That's correct. So therefore we don't accept claims made as 'truth' that quarks actually exist.



We can't rule a phenomena in either, until robust, empirical evidence in favor of the existance of said phenomena (such as 'quarks') is discovered, tested extensively and proved conclusively through testable, repeatable, falsifiable experiments.

So again, you want twist what I said into what you want to reply to.
It can only be because your prejudices so hard wired.
That's not a surprise.