Is God Real?

[Cann!bal]

I have a question.

What made you come to believe that God isn't real.

Like when did you become an Atheist?

The irrationality, the illogic, and ill reason.

I don't have a precise time when I realized I was an atheist, I just gradually became one.

Four-thousandth post!

:3

 

[Beats]

The irrationality, the illogic, and ill reason.

I don't have a precise time when I realized I was an atheist, I just gradually became one.

Four-thousandth post!

:3

Lol I understand and congratulations Cannibal. I will soon be reaching 4,000.

 

[Quattro]

So,

I have yet to see any evidence that you have put forward as to what the primary creator would be other than God. For logic would dictate that there be a primary creator who was not created.

 

[HUNNID]

I have a question.

What made you come to believe that God isn't real.

Like when did you become an Atheist?

Science and also science class. Many of my teachers have not only hinted at the fact he isn't real but also showed the process of evolution. I have also done many research of my own through the internet and through books.

 

[Cannabis]

So,

I have yet to see any evidence that you have put forward as to what the primary creator would be other than God. For logic would dictate that there be a primary creator who was not created.

Then how did he come to be?

inb4hejustalwayswas

On a related note, Jesus Christ and Christianity were nothing but tools invented by the Roman Senate to control the Jews during the first century. The first psychological warfare.
Source http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

 

[Quattro]

Then how did he come to be?

inb4hejustalwayswas


On a related note, Jesus Christ and Christianity were nothing but tools invented by the Roman Senate to control the Jews during the first century. The first psychological warfare.
Source http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

were not discussing jesus christ or christianity only God. (very different things)

=> Considering the argument is that God was the first being who created without being created, yes he always was. (PLEASE PLEASE READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND I DONT HAVE TIME FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO READ)

I have yet to hear a decent rebuttal.

 

[Cannabis]

were not discussing jesus christ or christianity only God. (very different things)

It's all about which brand of bullshit you subscribe to.

=> Considering the argument is that God was the first being who created without being created, yes he always was. (PLEASE PLEASE READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND I DONT HAVE TIME FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO READ)

I have yet to hear a decent rebuttal.

>Created with out being created.
Then where did he come from?

 

[Quattro]

It's all about which brand of bullshit you subscribe to.


>Created with out being created.
Then where did he come from?

Quite a rude comment also you have no idea what 'brand of bullshit' i subscribe too. You would be surprised what religion I actually follow.


As for your second question considering he wasn't created since he was the primary creator, he just simply existed. or was there.

 

[Cann!bal]

were not discussing jesus christ or christianity only God. (very different things)

=> Considering the argument is that God was the first being who created without being created, yes he always was. (PLEASE PLEASE READ MY POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND I DONT HAVE TIME FOR PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO READ)

I have yet to hear a decent rebuttal.

Labeling god as creatorless is a cop out. It's an argument from ignorance and it is logically invalid. I have already refuted your argument.

---

Quite a rude comment also you have no idea what 'brand of bullshit' i subscribe too. You would be surprised what religion I actually follow.


As for your second question considering he wasn't created since he was the primary creator, he just simply existed. or was there.

I would love if you elaborated on your beliefs, it would help me understand you much better.

 

[Quattro]

Labeling god as creatorless is a cop out. It's an argument from ignorance and it is logically invalid. I have already refuted your argument.

---

I would love if you elaborated on your beliefs, it would help me understand you much better.

---

You saying no without any logic or evidence seems absurd. There is obviously a chain of creation and the beginning of the chain there MUST be a primary creator. The primary creator logically could not have been created since he would therefore not be the primary creator by definition. I fail to see how it is an argument of ignorance and in fact I would argue its a logically sound argument


For the sake of this argument there is no need to elaborate on my beliefs.



Edit - I seem to have confused cannabis and cannib!l as the same person my bad. Feel free to argue against me cannab!l.

 

[Nevermind]

You saying no without any logic or evidence seems absurd. There is obviously a chain of creation and the beginning of the chain there MUST be a primary creator. The primary creator logically could not have been created since he would therefore not be the primary creator by definition. I fail to see how it is an argument of ignorance and in fact I would argue its a logically sound argument


For the sake of this argument there is no need to elaborate on my beliefs.

There does not have to be a creator. Our universe could just be here because of a random chain of events and coincidence that led to this point. Plus, the concept of a primary creator is outdated and doesn't make sense based on what we has been discovered about our universe.

 

[Quattro]

There does not have to be a creator. Our universe could just be here because of a random chain of events and coincidence that led to this point. Plus, the concept of a primary creator is outdated and doesn't make sense based on what we has been discovered about our universe.

What have we discovered about our universe that would invalidate there being a primary creator. Also there would HAVE to be a primary creator otherwise our universe would be infinite and have no finite start point, which we know by science is not true.

 

[Nevermind]

What have we discovered about our universe that would invalidate there being a primary creator. Also there would HAVE to be a primary creator otherwise our universe would be infinite and have no finite start point, which we know by science is not true.

We don't know exactly how our universe came to be, but that doesn't mean it was created by a magical being who lives in the sky and loves all of humanity. There are many other explanations that make much more sense. For example, the big bang theory. This theory consists of rapid expansion and the universe forming over trillions of years and expanding outwards. This makes much more sense, in my opinion. There are many other theories based upon science that can disprove the idea of a creator. Your theory of the creator is based on a definition, and not science.

 

[Quattro]

We don't know exactly how our universe came to be, but that doesn't mean it was created by a magical being who lives in the sky and loves all of humanity. There are many other explanations that make much more sense. For example, the big bang theory. This theory consists of rapid expansion and the universe forming over trillions of years and expanding outwards. This makes much more sense, in my opinion. There are many other theories based upon science that can disprove the idea of a creator. Your theory of the creator is based on a definition, and not science.

You are quite confused Leader

I am not claiming God lives in the sky or loves humanity, nor does that need to be true to prove 'God' exists. God and the Big Bang theory can co-exist so can God and science.


The big bang theory still requires the original partice/atom/small universe that rapidly expanded to have a creator, and that creator is God.

also my theory of a creator is based on logic.

 

[Nevermind]

You are quite confused Leader

I am not claiming God lives in the sky or loves humanity, nor does that need to be true to prove 'God' exists. God and the Big Bang theory can co-exist so can God and science.


The big bang theory still requires the original partice/atom/small universe that rapidly expanded to have a creator, and that creator is God.

God and science cannot coexist. They blatantly contradict each other. On the surface, it may seem like they can, but when you dig deeper, they begin to tear each other apart.

 

[Cann!bal]

You saying no without any logic or evidence seems absurd. There is obviously a chain of creation and the beginning of the chain there MUST be a primary creator. The primary creator logically could not have been created since he would therefore not be the primary creator by definition. I fail to see how it is an argument of ignorance and in fact I would argue its a logically sound argument

What? My evidence is the logical fallacies being made, it's a cop out and argument from ignorance. How do you know that there must be a primary creator? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.

Refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I don't think you quite understand what an argument from ignorance exactly is.

I told you not to use the phrase "by definition," because every time you do you make a fallacy. I've already elaborated on this.

 

[Quattro]

What? My evidence is the logical fallacies being made, it's a cop out and argument from ignorance. How do you know that there must be a primary creator? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.

Refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I don't think you quite understand what an argument from ignorance exactly is.

I told you not to use the phrase "by definition," because every time you do you make a fallacy. I've already elaborated on this.

How can there logically not be a primary creator? Show me how my logic is wrong. It is not an argument from ignorance because there is a logical chain that is followed.

 

[Cann!bal]

There does not have to be a creator. Our universe could just be here because of a random chain of events and coincidence that led to this point. Plus, the concept of a primary creator is outdated and doesn't make sense based on what we has been discovered about our universe.

The events that led us to the status quo were not random or coincidences. This is simply the product of quantum physics during the singularity. There's no logic that can validly dictate that this was random and or coincidental.

 

[Greed]

I don't wanna get in this debate or anything and am kind in the middle in this argument, but I found this funny.

Spoiler

 

[Nevermind]

The events that led us to the status quo were not random or coincidences. This is simply the product of quantum physics during the singularity. There's no logic that can validly dictate that this was random and or coincidental.

I guess that makes sense. I don't have a real deep understanding of quantum mechanics, but from what I've read, I can understand what you're saying.